University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Internationalization of higher education: A case study of a private United States research university

(USC Thesis Other)

Internationalization of higher education: A case study of a private United States research university

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION:
A CASE STUDY OF A PRIVATE U.S. RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
by
John Anthony Tambascia
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
December 2005
Copyright 2005 John Anthony Tambascia
UMI Number: 3219855
3219855
2006
Copyright 2005 by
Tambascia, John Anthony
UMI Microform
Copyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
All rights reserved.
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
ii
Dedication
In memory of my mom and dad, who always encouraged me to take advantage
of the opportunity for education, and to never lose sight of the importance of
working hard to achieve my goals.
iii
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my dissertation chair, Nelly P. Stromquist, for her guidance and
insight throughout the research process. Her support was instrumental in helping me
to complete this project, and her feedback allowed me to focus more clearly on the
key issues of this study. I also wish to express my gratitude to the other members of
my dissertation committee--William Rideout and Steven Lamy—for their
encouragement and assistance along the way.
Other faculty in the Rossier School of Education encouraged me in the pursuit of
my doctorate and helped me form the ideas that eventually led to this work. I
especially wish to acknowledge the support that David Eskey offered early in my
program and the keen insight provided by Bill Maxwell before and during this study.
I am indebted to the many staff, faculty and administrators at the University of
Southern California who gave of their time and insight during the interviews for this
study. My colleagues and supervisors at the university have also demonstrated great
patience and support during my coursework and research.
My wife Tracy has been a source of limitless encouragement and motivation.
This project would never have been completed without her feedback and support at
every step of the process. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the important role of my
son. Thank you, Alex, for helping me to keep my school work in perspective with
your great smiles and infectious laugh. Thanks mostly, however, for sharing the first
two years of your life with my last two years as a student.
iv
Table of Contents
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
The Phenomenon to be Studied 1
Purpose of the Study 3
Definitions of the Issues to be Investigated 5
Conceptual Framework 9
Research Questions 10
Importance of the Study 11
Limitations and Delimitations 13
Organization of the Chapters 15
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 16
Rationales for Internationalization 16
Political Rationales 17
Economic Rationales 19
Cultural and Social Rationales 22
Academic Rationales 22
Historical Evolution of Internationalization in Higher Education
and the Effects of Globalization
25
Early Trends in Internationalization of Higher Education 25
The Post-World War II Era 26
Internationalization Today: The Era of Globalization 27
The Problem of Unequal Benefit from Internationalization 31
Transnational Education: The (Near) Future of International Higher
Education?
34
The Emerging Role of Marketization 39
Marketization’s Implications for the Enactment of
Internationalization Strategies
43
Global Competition in Higher Education 46
Students as Consumers 51
Brand Name Recognition and the Drive for Excellence 54
Conclusion 54
v
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 57
Research Approach 57
Methodology 57
Setting for Case Study 57
Data Resources 60
Interviews 60
Document Analysis 64
Data Collection 66
Data Analysis 69
Trustworthiness of Data 71
Participant Confidentiality 74
CHAPTER FOUR: THE EMERGENCE AND EVOLUTION OF
INTERNATIONALIZATION IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING
PROCESS
76
USC Strategic Plan 1994 77
USC Strategic Plan 1998 83
USC Strategic Plan 2004 90
Other documents 98
CHAPTER FIVE: ASPIRING TO GLOBAL EXCELLENCE: A
UNIVERSITY’S EXPERIENCE WITH INTERNATIONALIZATION
104
Definitions of Internationalization 104
Rationales for Internationalization 113
Reported Changes and Attainments 124
Global Presence and Networking 124
Internationalization of Faculty and Research 128
Study Abroad and Student Exchange 132
International Partnerships and Outreach 137
Campus Leadership Toward Internationalization 139
A Global Vision Not Yet Realized? Perceived Shortfalls in Progress
Toward a More Internationalized University
142
Study Abroad 142
Internationalization of Faculty 149
Utilization of International Students as a Resource 153
Alumni 155
Internationalization of the Curriculum 158
Internationalization of Research Activities 161
Criticism of Approaches Taken and Specific Initiatives
Enacted
162
Management and Organizational Structure 169
Marketization and Competition 183
Money Matters: Financial Implications of Internationalization 191
vi
Geographic Focus on the Pacific Rim 197
Looking Toward the Future: Anticipated or Desired Future
Developments in Internationalization
210
Conclusion 219
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 221
Research Questions 221
Question 1 221
Question 2 223
Question 3 226
Question 4 229
Conclusions 232
Recommendations 235
REFERENCES 238
APPENDICES 245
Appendix A: Interview Protocol - Administrators 245
Appendix B: Interview Protocol - Faculty 246
Appendix C: Interview Protocol - Program Staff 247
Appendix D: Interview Request Letter 248
vii
List of Tables
Table 1 Interview invitations and response rates, by participant sub-group 66
Table 2 USC Strategic Plan, 1994 – Strategic Initiatives 77
Table 3 USC Strategic Plan, 1998 – Critical Pathways 83
Table 4 USC Strategic Plan, 2004 – Strategic Capabilities 96
Table 5 Elements included in definition of internationalization, by
participant sub-group
106
Table 6 International student enrollment at USC, by country 203
viii
Abstract
This study investigates the experiences of one institution’s attempt to become a
more international university. It seeks to portray the internationalization process at a
private research university, primarily through formal strategic planning documents
and the perceptions of university stakeholders.
The examination of the rationales for internationalization and how this process is
manifested at the university are operationalized by two data-gathering processes.
The first is a review of strategic planning documents and other materials related to
the institutional goal-setting of the past 15 years. The second involves interviews
conducted with administrators, faculty and staff--the key persons responsible for
designing and implementing the university’s strategic initiatives.
Among the key findings is that the effort to internationalize and expand the
university’s global presence is closely tied with the institution’s concurrent process
of increasing its prestige and rankings nationally and internationally. Some
stakeholders espouse academic rationales, arguing that internationalization will
improve overall quality and status of the institution. Others claim that economic
reasons, including development of new revenue sources, are equally important in
shaping the university’s strategy.
Several major initiatives have brought about an increased international presence
for the university. Among these are the creation of five international offices,
conferences in Asia, inclusion of several international members on the Board of
Trustees, and continued preeminence in enrollment of international students.
ix
However, shortfalls include the need for greater emphasis on study abroad for
undergraduates, not enough attention paid to how international and domestic students
can learn from one another, the need for closer relationships with international
alumni, deficient focus on nearby Latin America, and uneven commitment to
internationalization in different academic units. The university’s decentralized
organizational structure, while defended as an advantage in many instances, has also
been a hindrance to realizing the full potential outcomes of internationalization.
Geographic location, a strong faculty and student body, and a formal
commitment to internationalization are factors working in favor of continued
progress toward this strategic initiative in the future. Decisions made by institutional
leaders will determine to what extent an international perspective permeates all
functions and units of the university.
1
Chapter One
Introduction
“The internationalization of learning has been going on, of course, for a very
long time…Learning seems to be at least one contagion that cannot be
stopped, not even by the nation-state seeking to hold on to the secrets of
nuclear weapons; learning can now travel at the speed of light. Knowledge
flows like quicksilver into every crevice and spreads like a gas into every
vacuum. It is difficult, but possible, to stop the flow of many goods
associated with the commercial revolution but not the flow of facts and ideas
associated with the knowledge revolution.”
(Kerr, 1991, p. 25)
The Phenomenon to be Studied
This study focuses on the topic of internationalization as a strategic initiative
within higher education institutions. Over the past two decades, within higher
education in the United States and elsewhere, universities are including
internationalization in their mission statements and strategic plans. Like any popular
trend within education, it is important to examine the motivations for this
development and attempt to separate rhetoric from reality concerning
internationalization’s promise for higher education. Although many institutions say
they are becoming more international, there exists a variety of practical implications
associated with this goal. The outcome of internationalization efforts depend on why
a particular university chooses to emphasize internationalization and how it goes
about backing up the statements and plans with new structures and resources in
support of the international agenda.
2
A broad but useful definition of internationalization in higher education is
presented by de Wit (2002): “Internationalization of higher education is the process
of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and
service functions of the institution.” This concise definition will be used here, but
further description of the manifestations of internationalization strategies is
necessary to gain a more complete understanding of what forms the phenomenon
takes today. It is important to note that this definition limits the attention to
institutions, rather than national initiatives. Since the interest of this author is
primarily institutional strategy and policy, the definition is acceptable for this
purpose. As will be seen in the following pages, however, much of the literature on
the topic of internationalization over the past few decades has focused more on
national policy and international trends.
Welch (2002) explains that while there is no agreed upon set of measurements to
capture the concept of internationalization, most descriptions include a focus on
internationalization of three major areas: students, staff, and programs. He also
notes that attention should also be appropriately given to issues of organizational
change and administrative structures and processes. The definition offered above
makes the claim that internationalization is a process, rather than just a specific set of
international education activities. For this reason, the manifestation of
internationalization as an element of university missions and strategic plans is often
examined to determine how an institution is becoming more international in focus,
across its entire set of educational programs and functions.
3
Attempts to describe and measure internationalization have provided examples
of the types of programs that can be included in a broad definition of international
higher education activities. Among them are the following:
1. Student and faculty mobility (study abroad, student exchange, international
students, visiting lecturers, international teaching/research)
2. Academic programs-transnational education (joint degree programs, offshore
programs and campuses, distance education, twinning programs, development of
postgraduate/professional training programs for the international market)
3. Curriculum (international course participation, foreign language study, area
studies)
4. Research and scholarly collaboration (international research
agreements/partnerships, joint research centers)
5. Technical assistance (scholarships, institution-building, curriculum development)
6. Extracurricular programs (student organizations, international and intercultural
events, international alumni programs)
(Siaya & Hayward, 2003; de Wit, 2002; Altbach, 1998; Biddle, 2002; Burn &
Smuckler, 1995)
Purpose of the Study
This study investigates the experiences of one institution in its attempt to
become a more international university. An in-depth qualitative study of a single
institution allows for a detailed investigation of several dynamics taking place in an
4
institution in the midst of ongoing efforts to internationalize. This study attempts to
portray the process of internationalization at a private research university, primarily
through formal strategic planning documents and the perceptions of administrators,
faculty and staff. Few studies exist in the current body of literature concerning
single-institutions and the implementation of internationalization strategies, so this
study attempts to respond in part to this knowledge gap.
Specifically an institutional case study using the University of Southern
California, a large private research university, as the site for data collection and
analysis was conducted. This study examines the time period from 1990-2005.
Within U.S. higher education, this period has seen the rise of internationalization as a
common element of institutional mission statements and strategic plans, yet many
questions still remain concerning its historical dimension, its meaning and purpose,
its links to globalization, and appropriate strategies and organizational models for
effective internationalization (de Wit, 2002). While internationalization is widely
hailed as a positive development in higher education, some authors point out
challenges and potential drawbacks to these initiatives (Altbach, 2001; Altbach,
1998; Scott, 2000). The purpose of this study is to discover the rationales being used
to justify internationalization efforts, and how specific outcomes serve the rationales
employed. To do this, institutional changes that have taken place over the past
fifteen years are examined.
5
Definitions of the Issues to be Investigated
First, it is important to discuss and define two of the key general concepts that
will be used in this analysis: globalization and internationalization. Globalization is
used here to set a framework for analysis of internationalization. Specifically, issues
of competition and marketization are used to examine the case study experience of
internationalization at a higher education institution.
A recent trend in higher education literature (and political science, economics,
and other fields) has been the focus on the concept of globalization. When this term
is used, most authors are referring to an economic phenomenon marked by the
increasing integration of the world’s nations through international trade, interrelated
financial markets and production, and a growing network of communication
technology. However, globalization is evident in many areas beyond economics.
Stromquist and Monkman (2000) describe social, cultural and political
manifestations of globalization that are occurring alongside market forces. As
examples of social globalization, they include new consumption patterns and
lifestyles which lead to changes in migration, family relations, and social
organization. In the cultural area, they explain that new identities are taking shape
due to the rapid flow of people, goods, information and images. Factors pointing to
political globalization include increased acceptance of pluralistic systems, multiparty
democracy, free elections, and the call for human rights, among other developments.
Stromquist (2002b) further states that, “Today, we are seeing a veritable economic
and technological, and thus, cultural revolution that is simultaneously affecting
6
values, institutions, practices, and futures. The staggering amount of information,
goods, and persons circulating across countries is moving us toward greater
homogeneity, despite various singular responses from some states and communities.”
Recently many authors have written about the close links between globalization and
higher education. Schugurensky (1999, p. 285) sums up this relationship in stating,
“The changing role of the university at the end of the twentieth century cannot be
isolated from the emergence of a postindustrial economy, in which productivity
relies predominantly on science, technology, knowledge, and management, rather
than on the amount of capital and labor. This is particularly clear in advanced
countries, in which the new economy is increasingly based on information-
processing activities.”
The other key concept, which is the primary focus of this study, is
internationalization. Specifically, the research addresses how internationalization is
occurring within higher education in the context of a major private research
university in the United States. Internationalization refers to a specific set of
practical measures taken by institutions, and in some cases governments, to apply a
more global focus to higher education. A useful definition is offered by Hickling-
Hudson (2000, p. 232):
Internationalization involves the goals of incorporating a comparative,
multicultural, and global perspective into every discipline while
retaining a national focus in many, bidding for and engaging in
international higher education projects on a broad and systematic level,
selling higher education programs to substantial numbers of
international fee-paying students, developing twinning and offshore
programs, and upgrading the skills and knowledge of staff and
administrators to facilitate this process.
7
Most definitions of internationalization share Hickling-Hudson’s belief that an
international focus must become part of an institution’s underlying culture to be
effective. The following points are illustrative of this common refrain. de Wit’s
(2002) definition presented earlier understands internationalization as a process, as a
response to globalization (not to be confused with the globalization process itself),
and as including both international and local elements. This definition brings up the
important point that globalization and internationalization are two very distinct
concepts. IAU (2002) further explains that:
Establishing an international climate…cannot be limited to the formal acts of
teaching and learning. It has, rather, to pervade the campus throughout. As
students and staff become more diverse in their cultural backgrounds, so by
the same process they become both the means to develop ‘inter-cultural’
dialogue, a resource to fulfill that purpose, and, at the same time, its
objective. If carefully nurtured, internationalisation as a cultural experience
ought to become self-sustaining.
Evidence seems to be lacking that would show situations in which
internationalization has become a key aspect of institutional culture, to the point
where it is self-perpetuating. Admittedly, this is a difficult concept to measure, and
few have chosen to make the attempt. One other author takes this idea even further.
Ping (1999) proposes that greater change is necessary to create true
internationalization in higher education. He states:
Internationalization cannot be defined as an add-on to the
campus. It entails far more than area studies and multiple-
language competency. Internationalization is certainly not
defined by the fact that there are a large number of international
students on campus. Internationalization in a whole meaning is a
radical transformation of academic disciplines, a freeing of both
8
teaching and research from the dominance of the acceptance of
and training in the intellectual traditions of a particular culture.
As will be discussed, it is one thing to suggest radical transformation of
organizational structure, teaching and research, and another completely to overcome
opposition to new practices, reward structures, and topics of research. Current
research seems to indicate that although efforts to internationalize U.S. higher
education are common in all types of institutions, there is widespread disagreement
about the intended outcomes of such strategies.
Taking into consideration the definitions presented here, it is important to
outline a more focused definition of internationalization to be utilized in this study.
Internationalization will be defined as both a process and a set of programmatic
initiatives within an institution of higher education. Process elements include the
planning and strategizing functions of instilling an international perspective
systematically into the broad range of institutional activities and initiatives.
Programmatic elements of internationalization include student and faculty mobility,
transnational education, international elements of the curriculum, and international
research collaboration. A key focus of this research project is to learn how various
stakeholders within the studied institution define the concept of internationalization.
Their own definitions will provide a necessary context for assessing attainment of
this objective and the intended outcomes of such efforts.
9
Conceptual Framework
A working hypothesis of this study is that market forces, competition and
consumerism are major drivers of the international agenda for U.S. higher education
institutions, including the institution selected for this case study. While these
concepts will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two, a brief summary is
presented here.
Wagner (2004) describes an emerging model of the university as a firm, and
how decisions are increasingly made based on efficiency and revenue-producing
potential. Not only are universities behaving more like firms, but they are
associating with businesses and corporations to a much greater degree than
previously. This comes into play when identifying sources for financial support,
especially for research projects.
Many studies have addressed the perceived international marketplace for higher
education, and business terms such as “brand recognition” have made their way into
the discourse about the ways universities can reach a broader market for students,
faculty, funding, and overall prestige (Ryan, 2001; Middlehurst, 2001).
Perhaps most pertinent to a study of internationalization in higher education is
the concept of competition. Surely colleges and universities have always competed
with one another to some extent, but recent literature asserts that this competition has
grown immensely in recent decades as institutions become more and more attuned to
various external rankings and as various new types of institutions, including for-
profit entities, have made their way in the higher education arena. More recently,
10
many authors have investigated this issue in an international context and have
described a global marketplace in which institutions increasingly look beyond the
borders of their home countries to stake a claim to broader markets worldwide
(Marginson, 2002; Welch, 2002).
Research Questions
A review of the literature on the afore-mentioned concepts of globalization,
marketization, and competition, as well as specific programmatic areas such as
transnational education, illustrates that the process of internationalization within
higher education takes place in a complex, multi-faceted environment. Especially at
a large research institution with numerous individual schools, there are often
competing agendas and objectives in regard to international endeavors. The actors
are many, and the assumed stakes are high, given the importance placed on
postsecondary education in meeting individual, national, and global objectives. For
the purpose of this study, a limited set of research questions have been posed to
address some of these key issues in the context of a major North American research
university. Prior to the study, the researcher’s expectation was that some of the
concepts defined here, particularly the focus on higher education as a market
commodity and the acceptance of competition as a necessary driving force for
planning decisions, are at play in the case being examined.
11
The following research questions frame this study:
1. What are the rationales for internationalization as a strategic initiative in
higher education, as defined by USC?
2. What types of internationalization objectives are proposed and what has been
accomplished during the period examined in this study? How is the success
of this strategy measured by the institution?
3. To what extent do market forces and competition influence the effort to
internationalize a higher education institution?
4. What administrative and organizational structures have supported or limited
internationalization efforts? How have these structures changed to facilitate
internationalization?
Importance of the Study
Some authors have argued that there is a disconnect between rhetoric and reality
on the subject of internationalization in universities (Biddle, 2002; Ping, 1999;
Altbach & Peterson, 1998). Large numbers of students say they want to study
abroad, but relatively few actually do so. A majority of faculty claim to support
internationalization efforts, but there is often resistance to changes that threaten the
departmental status quo. And administrators extol the virtues of educating a
globally-conscious student body, but often have more practical rationales for
pursuing an international agenda (fundraising, institutional prestige, etc.).
12
This study is a policy-oriented research project. The key objective is to learn
why the selected institution has chosen to make internationalization a priority, and to
what extent demonstrable changes have followed inclusion of this goal in the
university’s mission statement and strategic plan. Additionally, another key
component of this study is to examine how the institution has chosen to carry out its
internationalization agenda, from the standpoint of administrative and programmatic
reforms.
A recent study by the American Council on Education, supported by the Ford
Foundation, provides extensive survey data on student and faculty attitudes about
internationalization, along with indications of organizational measures being taken
by institutions (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). A detailed case study approach using one
institution as the unit of analysis is helpful to further investigate some of the findings
in the ACE report. The ACE study offered a fairly comprehensive snapshot of
attitudes toward internationalization within US higher education. Focusing on four
institution types (community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive
universities, and research universities), many positive findings were reported.
Among these attainments were increased emphasis on foreign language instruction,
strong support of internationalization by students and faculty, and high levels of
participation in internationally-focused courses. Based on the results of the ACE
study, research universities appear to be faring somewhat better in regard to
internationalization than other institution types. More of these institutions reported
inclusion of internationalization in their mission statements and strategic plans, and
13
were more likely to report the existence of an office that oversees and administers
international education programs. However, some weaknesses were also noted.
Foreign language studies were increasingly concentrated in Spanish, and students
generally preferred foreign language and foreign culture learning that is focused on
Western countries. Overall participation in academic programs abroad remains quite
low, and many of those who do go abroad do so for only short periods of time.
What seems to be missing, or at least very scarce, in the existing research, is
evidence of how well institutions are meeting their own specific intentions of
internationalization. For this reason, it is important to examine one institution’s
stated goals in this area, investigate the rationales behind those goals, and then
attempt to determine the outcomes of their efforts as perceived by key actors in the
process. This case study’s design allows for this kind of analysis to take place,
offering an in-depth perspective on the phenomenon of internationalization in higher
education.
Limitations and Delimitations
The strategic plans that have been examined are those that have been introduced
since 1990. The reason for choosing 1990 as a beginning point was a desire to
investigate changes that have taken place since USC formalized its
internationalization strategy. This time frame also allowed for the selection of many
interview participants who have been at the university for all or most of the period of
this study.
14
The number of administrators, faculty and staff interviewed was based on the
desire to include representatives from a variety of divisions and academic units of the
university, while at the same time recognizing the time limitations of the researcher.
It was not possible to interview representatives from every department that might be
considered important in an investigation of internationalization. For example, while
administrators from the schools of engineering and business were interviewed,
faculty from those schools were not included. Conversely, faculty and/or staff from
the schools of medicine, education, and policy, planning and development were
included, but administrators from those schools were not represented.
The study also focuses only on the perceptions of internal actors, namely
administrators, faculty, and staff at USC. The opinions of people outside the
university were not solicited, although these data might prove to be useful for future
examination.
This study examines issues related to internationalization of the case study
institution at the general level, seeking primarily to expose rationales for this
institutional focus and to illustrate outcomes that have been observed. Any number
of more limited, specific areas of internationalization (i.e., foreign students, offshore
programs, distance education, etc.) could form the basis for further study of how
internationalization is being implemented by specific parts of the university.
15
Organization of the Chapters
Chapter Two frames this study in the relevant scholarly literature on
globalization and higher education, internationalization strategies, and marketization
of higher education.
Chapter Three outlines the methodological approach and research design
employed in the study. A case study research design included document analysis
focused on USC’s most recent strategic planning documents, and interviews with
representatives from the university’s administration, faculty and staff.
Chapters Four and Five present and discuss the study’s findings. Chapter Four
examines the formal strategic plans the university has implemented over the past 15
years, focusing especially on the implications for internationalization initiatives.
Chapter Five presents the data derived from interviews with the 34 study
participants. This chapter looks at how USC officials define internationalization,
what attainments they point to, and noted shortfalls and criticisms of the progress to
date.
Chapter Six concludes the report. The discussion of the issues in this chapter is
centered on the research questions presented in Chapter One.
16
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
This chapter presents a review of the literature on several issues pertaining to
internationalization, starting with a discussion of four categories of rationales for
internationalization of higher education. Next, a brief historical perspective is
provided to offer a deeper understanding of today’s trends. For the purpose of this
presentation, previous trends have been divided into three roughly distinct periods:
Pre-World War II, Post-World War II, and more recent development occurring since
about 1985. The problem of unequal benefit from internationalization is addressed
next, followed by a description of transnational education, a growing area of focus
within international education. Finally, the topic of marketization of higher
education is discussed, particularly in the context of internationalization strategies.
Specifically, issues of competition, consumerism, and name branding are
highlighted. Each of these issues has major implications for internationalization of
higher education, at least in its current form.
Rationales for Internationalization
To better understand how internationalization in higher education has evolved
over time, one must first investigate answers to the question, “why internationalize?”
Four types of rationales are presented by de Wit (2002): political, economic,
cultural/social, and academic.
17
Political Rationales
Political rationales include foreign policy considerations (educational
cooperation as diplomatic investment), national security, technical assistance
(educational aid), and peace and mutual understanding. Another political rationale
for internationalization relates to regional identity. This trend can be observed now
in Europe with many programmatic efforts to create “Europeanization” within the
European Union higher education programs, and to some extent in Asia with
Australia involved as a major player.
Political rationales have long been, and continue to be today, among the
strongest motivators for countries and institutions to strive for internationalization in
higher education. De Wit (1999) describes how European colonial powers replicated
their own models of higher education in their colonies in Asia, Africa, and the
Americas. The primary goal of this approach was dominance (political, cultural,
economic, and academic). As the United States emerged as a world power in the
past century, higher education was seen as one key mechanism for expanding
influence and power. This resulted in federal funding for foreign language training,
study abroad programs, and area studies. The rationale of national security also
spurred the enactment of such initiatives as the Title VI legislation in 1959. Around
the same time, humanitarian assistance programs included a focus on all levels of
education, seen in the funding of specific programs run by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (AID) (Ruther, 2002). Certainly there are global
problems that require solutions that reach beyond traditional national borders. The
18
answers to serious questions regarding environmental degradation, medical
breakthroughs, urbanization problems, and many other topics may indeed be found
more readily through cooperation of the kind encouraged by international education
efforts.
Regionalism is another political force that has had a strong influence on
internationalization of higher education. Faced with global political and economic
competition, countries within certain geographic regions are banding together to
form regional academic networks. Examples include the University Mobility in Asia
and the Pacific (UMAP) program, and ERASMUS and SOCRATES in Europe, both
aimed at enhancing academic collaboration between member nations and stimulating
flows of students across national borders within the region (Welch, 2002). Other
regional trade agreements have begun to include education (particularly higher
education) as a component of trade.
Major international treaties have done the same on an even larger scale. The
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) framework formalizes education
as a commodity. GATS, formed in 1993-94, along with the General Agreement in
Tariffs and Trades (GATT), led to formation of the World Trace Organization
(WTO) in 1995. The WTO, with 140 signatories, forms a new context for
international academic exchanges (Welch, 2002; Robertson, et al., 2002). Among the
categories of trade legally protected under GATS are:
1. Cross border trade (distance education and other means of sending educational
materials across borders)
19
2. Consumption abroad (education of foreign students)
3. Commercial presence (actual presence of foreign education investors in a host
country, i.e., foreign universities setting up courses or institutions in another
country)
4. Temporary movement of persons as service providers (the ability of people to
move between countries to provide education services)
GATS operates through a set of “commitments,” some general and some
voluntary. Education is considered a voluntary commitment, so member nations
decide how much access to provide for different education sectors. GATS
stipulates that each member nation be treated equally, so that access
(commitments) cannot be limited to particular countries (OECD, 2004). While
these developments are relatively recent, concerned observers have begun to
raise concerns. According to Robertson, et al., (2002, p. 489):
The process of rescaling the governance of education to the global level,
and specifically to the WTO, raises a number of crucial questions. For
instance, how might national human capital planning be altered if a
national education system was now governed by the rules of GATS rather
than a nationally specific set of rules? Further, how might one of the
post-World War II roles of education, to construct national identity, be
nationally secured in a global educational market place? Finally, would
nation states continue to allocate a central role to education as the central
institution ensuring social mobility and meritocracy?
Economic Rationales
While political rationales have long had an impact on internationalization,
in more recent decades, economic rationales for internationalization have
20
begun to take center stage in higher education. Among the economic rationales
for internationalization on the national level are national economic growth and
competitiveness, meeting national educational demand, meeting demands for a
modern, more global work force. At the institution level, higher education is
seen as an export commodity, and universities see income potential in
acceptance of foreign students, offshore programs, and development of
professional training programs (de Wit, 1999; Turpin et al, 2002; Meyer,
2004).
Internationalization strategies are aimed at preparing graduates for a globalized
work force, establishing research partnerships focused on emerging technologies
with large earning potential, and national income generation through the marketing
of higher education internationally (de Wit, 1999). Many governments are under
pressure to reduce public spending on education and to locate other sources of
provision besides expansion of the local system (Carnoy & Rhoten, 2002). This
makes international partnerships attractive and creates an environment where foreign
providers are welcomed into the higher education arena in many countries.
Robertson, et al. (2002) point out that states (and institutions) can no longer behave
as if national economies are closed and their growth potential is only domestic. The
intense focus on internationalization of higher education in the past two decades can
be largely attributed to this point.
Marginson (2002), speaking from an Australian perspective, mentions some
other economic factors affecting internationalization of higher education. In terms of
21
student mobility, currency exchange rates play a large part in students’ decisions
about an appropriate foreign-study locale. In the case of Australia, this has been
used to that country’s advantage in a battle to lure students from attending US or
British universities. Shorter required time periods for completing degrees (i.e., in the
case of Australia, 1-year master’s degrees and 3-year bachelors and doctorates) is
another way to gain an edge on the competition.
Presenting a classic supply and demand argument, Middlehurst (2001, p. 4)
notes, “Over the past decade, two key factors—increased student numbers and the
increasing costs of higher education—have driven new developments in higher
education. Most educational institutions in the Western world predict continuing
demand and competition. A growing demand comes from the ‘working adult’
population, including people who failed to qualify or participate in higher education
at earlier stages in their lives, and those who seek further credentials and training.
New professions and vocations are also fuelling demand.” Public diplomacy,
defined by Spaulding, et al. (2001, p. 198) as, “…activities involving citizens of
nations rather than the traditional diplomacy involving only governments and their
foreign ministries,” is often cited as a benefit of such internationalization efforts. For
example, encouraging international students is seen as contributing to the country’s
continuing political and economic influence in other parts of the world. Foreign
students might later work in positions of influence that could affect trade and
political relations.
22
Cultural and Social Rationales
Cultural and social rationales include nationalist arguments promoting the
dissemination of the national language and exporting national, cultural and moral
values through educational programs. In contrast, cultural rationales can also be
characterized by concern for developing an awareness of the interdependence of
different societies and the international nature of knowledge. At the individual level,
many students participate in international education activities primarily with a
purpose of expanding personal awareness of other cultures.
Academic Rationales
While the political, economic, and to a large degree the cultural/social rationales
have been focused on national motivations for internationalization, academic
rationales are espoused typically by institutions of higher education. These include
institution-building (strengthening the core structures and activities of an institution),
enhancing profile and status, and enhancing quality (de Wit, 2002). Issues of profile
and status will be addressed more fully in the section describing this study’s
conceptual framework, as well as in presentation of both documentary and interview
findings.
Currently, many who are strong advocates for internationalization include both
political and economic rationales in their arguments. An example can be seen is this
text from IAU (1998): “It is imperative that higher education offer solutions to
23
existing problems and innovate to avoid problems in the future. Whether in the
economic, political, or social realms, higher education is expected to contribute to
raising the overall quality of life, world wide. To fulfill its role effectively and
maintain excellence, higher education must become far more internationalized; it
must integrate an international and intercultural dimension into its teaching, research,
and service functions.”
The peace and understanding rationale is well illustrated by Altbach and
Peterson (1998, p. 39) who state:
…we ignore the rest of the world at our own peril. Americans
have much to learn from research and scholarship taking place
elsewhere, and all of us have to understand the languages,
cultures, ideas, and economies of the rest of the world. We can
only do this if we study foreign cultures, interact with colleagues
in other countries, and send our students to study and learn
firsthand about the world outside the United States. In the
process, we build up not only expertise but good will and mutual
understanding between the United States and other nations.”
Very few practitioners in this field would contradict Altbach and Peterson’s
statement. A much trickier problem, however, is how to measure the true outcome
of the many internationalization efforts that exist. Those who have attempted to
analyze this area have often focused on descriptive data indicating levels of
participation in international activities. These studies have not always resulted in
encouraging findings.
While many agree that internationalization measures can have a powerful effect
on higher education and relationships among people and nations, there are numerous
challenges to achieving this ideal. Hayward (2000, p. 4) notes:
24
When carefully scrutinized as a whole…a snapshot of the state of
internationalization emerges. Unfortunately, this picture leaves
much to be desired: Foreign language enrollments are low;
international courses constitute only a small part of college and
university curricula; study abroad, although increasingly
available in a variety of contexts, remains an under-valued and
underutilized means of instruction; internationalization as an
institutional concept worthy of campus-wide integration is rare;
and most graduates are ill-prepared to face the global
marketplace of employment and ideas.
Others agree that much work still needs to be done. Among the many obstacles
to true internationalization of higher education are:
1. Institutional and governmental financial constraints
2. Other reform agendas that clamor for attention
3. Current absence of public or student interest
4. An American professoriate that is unenthusiastic about internationalizing the
curriculum. (Green, 2002; Altbach, 1998)
Despite the obstacles, many within higher education continue to call for
internationalization efforts. Among the many issues cited by proponents of
internationalization are the growing instantaneity of communication and rapid
advances in transportation (resulting in increased need for intercultural and
international understanding and knowledge), the contemporary volatility of
international political and economic conditions, and an urgent need to break down
national stereotypes often promulgated by international media conglomerates—
especially in times of crisis (Bartell, 2003; Welch, 1997).
25
Historical Evolution of Internationalization in Higher Education
and the Effects of Globalization
To provide background for current trends in university internationalization, the
following section reviews some historical developments that touch upon strategies
and challenges that are part of today’s internationalization efforts.
Early Trends in Internationalization of Higher Education
Some have said that universities are by their very nature worldly or international
institutions. Student mobility has characterized higher education since at least the
medieval era, with students traveling far from home to find and study with the best,
or most well - known, teachers (Welch, 2002). In the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, internationalization was mostly manifested in the exporting of higher
education systems, primarily from Europe outward to its nations’ colonies. These
European exports (in the form of higher education institutions) landed in North,
Central and South America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. There are also historic
incidences of countries with a non-colonial heritage adopting Western educational
models and values. Japan, China and Thailand, for example have largely Western
university systems. In the case of Japan, the German university model was used
first, then, after World War II, the U.S. influence in Japan’s post-war modernization
led to American models being employed (de Wit, 2002).
The early part of the twentieth century saw a shift toward more organized
cooperation and exchange in higher education. Several exchange-oriented
26
organizations started in this period, including the Institute of International Education
(US, 1919), Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (Germany, 1925), and the
British Council (1934). International academic cooperation focused more on
scholars than students during this period of time (de Wit, 2002). Addressing the pre-
World War II years however, Burn (1980, p. xviii) states, “Public concern for
international affairs has never been widespread in the United States. For much of
our history, we considered ourselves geographically isolated and were impatient with
events beyond our borders that threatened to distract us from developing our own
growing nation.” She notes, though, that this changed during and after World War
II. Motivated primarily by a need to strengthen the nation’s defense, the
understanding of other nations, both allies and enemies, becomes increasingly
important. After the war ended, significant resources were put toward rebuilding
war-damaged countries and in helping less developed countries to improve their
economies and technical capabilities (Burn, 1980). These developments led to a
stronger focus on foreign language instruction within higher education to prepare for
these tasks. At the same time, student exchanges and collaborative research
programs grew immensely (Siaya & Hayward, 2003).
The Post-World War II Era
The decades following World War II were marked by sustained
internationalization efforts in higher education. According to Barker (2000, p. 2):
As the technologies of travel, communications and information have
brought the entire world within our reach, our need to understand
27
international and global phenomena has expanded. During the Cold
War, the federal government and major foundations committed
substantial resources to the study of international relations, foreign
languages and economic development. In a bipolar world, in addition
to understanding the dynamics of international relations, there was a
need to develop knowledge of the societies, politics and economies of
international rivals, allies and the nations emerging from colonization
whose loyalties were of focus of Cold War competition.
Besides internationalization efforts focused on student and faculty exchange and
joint research, development cooperation and technical assistance projects proliferated
in the 1960s and 1970s. As large development funds were invested in Asia, Latin
America and Africa, academics from U.S., Western European, Canadian, Australian
and Soviet universities were sent to these regions to implement projects and conduct
training and teaching. This period was dominated by North-South relations, and this
was apparent in several one-way relationships that existed. For example, students
flowed from South to North, and faculty flowed from North to South (de Wit, 2002).
Internationalization Today: The Era of Globalization
Since the 1980s, the concept of globalization has emerged as the dominant
theme for those investigating political, economic, cultural and technological
developments. As stated by Held & McGrew (2002, p. 1):
Globalization, simply put, denotes the expanding scale, growing
magnitude, speeding up and deepening impact of transcontinental flows
and patterns of social interaction. It refers to a shift or transformation in
the scale of human organization that links distant communities and
expands the reach of power relations across the world’s regions and
continents.
28
Monkman and Baird (2002, p. 497) characterize a situation where different
commentators view globalization through various lenses based on their own
perspectives:
Like beauty, the significance of globalization is in the eye of the
beholder. While there is a general agreement that there is a set of new
global phenomena that have cultural, economic, and political
implications, interpretation of these phenomena hinges on the analyst’s
disciplinary, theoretical, and political orientation. Different scholars
highlight the decline of the nation-state and the concomitant
strengthening of supranational organizations, the homogenization and
hybridization of cultures, expansion of international trade and finance
that increasingly operate on a global scale in real time, social networks
that transcend national boundaries, and the expansion of communications
and transportation in a context of time and space compression. Those on
the political Left criticize globalization as Western hegemony and
imperialism and seek alternatives, whole those on the Right praise
globalization as the triumph of Western civilization and liberal
democracy. The concept is broad, holistic, multidisciplinary, and
contested.
This brings us to the relationship between globalization and internationalization
in higher education. Faced with the pressures (or opportunities) of globalization,
institutions of higher education are engaging in the global information/knowledge
marketplace while at the same time attempting to retain their autonomous positions
as academic institutions (de Wit, 2002). What are the practical outcomes of these
trends? In higher education, sources of funding can be seen to be shifting from
government to other interests, including corporations. New forms of educational
provision are emerging, with huge implications for international education due to the
potential uses of new technologies in delivering education across borders. Also, new
29
groups of students are being targeted, including adult learners, working
professionals, and others (Deem, 2001).
For centuries, international education activities have been seen as positive
opportunities for students to expand their knowledge, for academics to engage in
research with colleagues around the world, and for institutions and countries to
establish strategic partnerships which are hopefully beneficial to all involved. These
goals are not always easily met, however, due to the many obstacles involved in the
establishment of quality international education endeavors. As Middlehurst (2001, p.
6) notes:
[Globalization] …may imply moves towards standardized curricula and
modes of delivery. For example, multi-national businesses that choose to
partner with universities are increasingly seeking common curricula that
can be delivered by different institutions in different countries.
International curriculum development teams are needed alongside
integrated delivery systems; these are expensive commodities. Moreover,
pressures for international mobility of labour create a need for greater co-
ordination and harmonization of regulatory procedures across national
governments, to ensure that qualifications and credit are portable and
mutually recognized.
While internationalization efforts have generally adopted rhetoric of cooperation
in previous manifestations, the language of internationalization has been changing
with the influence of globalization. Some examples include the focus on knowledge
and intellectual property as critical factors in economic development, increasing
global competition, quality control, and marketization. According to Turpin, et al.
(2002), the response of universities to these forces has been the adoption of business
practices in the academy, and aggressive pursuit of rapidly opening international
markets for higher education. Carnoy and Rhoten (2002) add that issues of
30
decentralization, privatization, choice and accountability, have accompanied
globalization’s influence on higher education. Less state control of higher education,
along with open education borders (brought about by regulatory frameworks such as
GATS or by bilateral and multilateral agreements between nations) have set the stage
for the proliferation of transnational education at the tertiary level. At the same time,
many institutions see the market for their products (education and knowledge
production) expanding on a global scale. While not entirely absent, borders are
increasingly crossed for the purpose of seeking or providing higher education.
The question remains: what does this mean for teaching and learning, especially
in an international context? As a key component of globalization, technological
developments are having a major impact on delivery of tertiary education, both in
domestic and international contexts. In a study of distance education based in
Australia, Welch (2002) argues, however, that these trends are driven primarily by
economic concerns rather than educational considerations. Carnoy & Rhoten (2002,
p. 6) agree with the economic rationale, but also focus on quality and
internationalization, stating:
Information technology is gradually being introduced into educational
systems, party to try to expand the quantity of education at lower cost
through distance education and partly to deliver higher-quality education
(at higher cost) through computer-assisted instruction and the use of the
Internet. Although almost all countries are at the very beginning of using
such new technology, its future use in education cannot be
underestimated, particularly because of its ability to link students in the
smallest towns of every country with the rest of the world.
This brings up one of many links between the concepts of globalization and
internationalization. Like most manifestations of internationalization, distance
31
education holds the promise to democratize higher education through drastic
expansion of access worldwide, but at the same time there is the danger of greater
homogenization of educational content due to the nearly limitless potential reach of
distance programs presented by the dominant institutions and countries.
Besides university internationalization initiatives that rely on the latest
technological developments, other recent trends warrant mention here. As
mentioned previously, students have traveled internationally to gain higher education
for quite some time. A more recent development is transnational education, or
institutional mobility. Fielden (2001) describes the emergence of overseas courses
sponsored by European or American universities, along with the establishment in
recent years of wholly-owned offshore campuses by institutions in the UK, Australia,
and the U.S.
The Problem of Unequal Benefit from Internationalization
A major criticism of globalization, as defined earlier, is that the dominant
countries, corporations, and ideologies are becoming more powerful while other
interests are becoming more marginalized. A similar phenomenon within higher
education deserves some attention.
The debate about inequities within internationalization focus on disparities
between world regions, countries, institutions (and institutional type), fields of study,
and student participation. Altbach (2002a) provides a good summary of these issues:
Open markets, at least in higher education, reinforce the inequalities
that already exist. If educational borders are completely open, the
32
strongest and wealthiest education providers will have unrestricted
access. Countries and institutions that cannot compete will find it
difficult to flourish. This means that developing countries and smaller
industrialized nations will be at a considerable disadvantage. Local
academic institutions will find it difficult to compete with providers
that choose to set up institutions in their country. Foreign providers
will focus on the most profitable segment of the market—today
including business and management studies, information technology,
and a few others—and leave the rest to the local institutions. Such
fields as the basic sciences, requiring expensive laboratories and other
equipment and offering little immediate profit-making potential, not to
mention support for libraries, will be ignored by the foreign providers.
Just as foreign providers (dominant countries) who locate their programs
overseas have tended to offer profitable programs such as MBAs at branch
campuses, they have also educated a large percentage of the world’s scientists in
their own laboratories through the welcoming of foreign students. While foreign
student programs are not the specific focus of this project, it should be noted that
some make a strong argument that the “Western” education of such students deprives
less-developed countries from developing their own high-level research base.
Issuing a challenge to proponents of international education, Stromquist (2002b)
states:
As the migration of people accelerates, the South is coming to the
North. This makes it necessary to understand the dynamics of both
regions. Educators in the North, including those who are not
comparativists, need to learn the background of students, their cultural
norms, their cognitive patterns, and the nature of the school systems of
origin, and to determine how the North must adjust to new pressing
conditions rather than demand full assimilation.
Of course, this proposal is much easier said than done. Some countries and
institutions are combating the global inequities by forming regional cooperation
33
schemes and networks. In this way, knowledge is shared within a particular world
region and regional international ties are strengthened.
Several authors make the point that globalization and internationalization benefit
certain institutions (and institution types) more than others. Currie and Subotzky
(2000, p. 123) also are concerned with which institutions stand to have influence in
the new environment:
Given these dominant tendencies and the impact of globalization on
higher education, key questions arise. How can the broader social
purpose of higher education be maintained in the face of the
increasing prevalence of globalization practices? What
organizational arrangements, especially regarding internal
governance and external responsiveness, will provide the basis for
maintaining concerns for democracy, social justice, and community
development? In the competitive market ethos associated with these
practices, what role will be played by institutions that are not at the
cutting edge of innovation?
Disparities are not limited to the institutional level. A key question is, “which
students participate in international programs?” Within the U.S., about 0.8 percent
of total enrollments study abroad per year, and 3 percent of all students go abroad
sometime during their undergraduate career. The majors represented by these
students overwhelmingly fall under the classifications of social sciences and
humanities, and participants exhibit very little ethnic or economic diversity
(Hayward, 2000). On the other hand, some argue that overall internationalization
efforts can create opportunities for all students, not just those who travel and study
overseas. Bringing up the importance of curricular reform and international
experience of faculty, Rudzki (1995, p. 433) notes, “Student mobility should be
understood as not only the physical mobility of the minority of students, but the
34
intellectual mobility of the majority, in the sense that the majority will derive benefit
from the other dimensions of internationalization, and most especially from
curriculum innovation and staff development.”
Transnational Education: The (Near) Future of International Higher Education?
Among the most important forms of international education is what is known as
transnational education programs. Specifically, this term is used here to describe
international agreements and programs between two or more institutions in different
countries, and other educational programs that cross borders. A useful and fairly
comprehensive definition is offered by Knight (2002, p. 192): “Transnational and
borderless education are terms which are being used to describe real or virtual
movement of students, teachers, knowledge and academic programmes from one
country to another. The term cross-border education is also used because in many
cases it is necessary to capture the importance and relevance of geographic and
jurisdictional borders.” This author prefers the term transnational education, and it
will be used in the rest of this report as such.
The content of transnational higher education programs can vary widely, but
often includes student exchange programs, joint research programs, library support
programs, support for administrative structures, and institutional development at the
departmental, faculty, and institutional level. Other manifestations include offshore
programs and campuses, twinning programs, articulation programs, and
35
virtual/distance institutions (Altbach, 2002b; de Wit, 2002). As Thullen, et al (1997,
p.1) claim:
Economic dynamism and political liberalization throughout the world,
notably in Africa, Asia, the Newly Independent States (formerly the
Soviet Union), Eastern and Central Europe, and Latin America, have
led universities in these areas to greatly expand their contacts with
universities in other countries, including the United States.
Highlighting the unique aspects of transnational education, Knight (2002, p.
192) notes that:
Many educators might point out that demand for higher education has
been steadily increasing for years and that academic mobility for
students, scholars, teachers and knowledge has been an integral aspect
of higher education for centuries. This is true. But the picture is
changing. Now, not only are more people moving; academic
programmes and providers are also moving across borders. More and
more, economic rationales and benefits are driving a large part of the
international or cross-border supply of education.
Others echo this description of the mobility of programs as a new manifestation of
internationalization. Daniel (2002, p. 13) looks at this issue from the perspective of
distance education:
In the twentieth century aviation technology encouraged strong growth
in international student mobility. Today electronic technology makes
the programmes of study potentially mobile. Instead of traveling to
another country a student can now stay at home and study a course
taught at a distance by a university based in that country.
Daniel sees two broad categories of transnational education: (1) distance education—
the content crosses borders; and (2) offshore education—the faculty and pedagogy
cross borders. Some see a complementary relationship between foreign providers
(typically universities in the most-developed countries) and the receiving country
(generally developing nations). The developing countries have often welcomed the
36
foreign providers, and have taken measures to facilitate their entry, as a means of
meeting an increasing demand for higher education without major increases in
funding (Mohamedbhai, 2003).
Many forms of transnational education involve linkage programs—partnerships
or agreements between institutions in different countries. The key concept behind an
academic linkage program is that each partner expects to gain something from the
agreement. While these intended gains may not be the same for each partner, they
are not necessarily at odds with each other. The difficulty for planners is to identify
and fund partnerships which offer something of value to both sides in a fairly
balanced way. Twinning arrangements, an increasingly common form of
transnational education, can occur between institutions in any kind of country, but
many take place as agreements between one institution in a more developed country
and one in a less developed country. Lee (2000, p. 327) describes these
arrangements in the context of Malaysia:
Twinning arrangements have a variety of forms, and most of them
involve students taking the first one or two years of a degree program
within a private college in Malaysia and then completing the
remainder of the program in a twinning university overseas, thereby
obtaining a degree from the foreign university. This emergence of
foreign-linked programs reflects a growing trend of transnational
education, which means that there is a growing volume of higher
education being delivered across national boundaries. In most cases,
the curricula used in the transnational education programs are usually
imported directly from the foreign institutions, although some
institutions do try to adopt some of the curricula to the local context.
As with other forms of internationalization, there is a danger of dominance by
the wealthier countries and institutions. As Hickling-Hudson (2000, p. 219) states,
37
“Many impoverished countries are caught in the dilemma of being faced with this
competition when they have been unable to develop their own tertiary education
sectors sufficiently to meet burgeoning local demand. There is a higher education
vacuum, and the universities of the wealthy countries are rushing in to fill it.” As
with all types of international development assistance, there are issues concerning
whose viewpoints and needs are served.
In addition to the common linkage model involving student exchange programs,
some partnerships are focused on joint transnational research projects. Many, if not
most, institutions have faculty taking part in research collaborations with colleagues
in different countries, but this phenomenon is not often measured and analyzed on an
institutional level. For this reason, the extent of these linkages and their
sustainability over a period of time remain in question. As with any transnational
partnership, research collaborations face many challenges. As stated by IAU (2002),
“International research collaboration should in future seek a wider basis than simply
the sharing of findings and data. It should begin with a joint identification of the
problematique and the working conjointly of the research design.” It’s a simple
concept, but perhaps the most difficult aspect of transnational partnerships to carry
out.
Some point to an historical shift in support for transnational education programs.
Whereas in previous periods border-crossing educational activities were generally
initiated by governments, a more common model today is for these endeavors to
emanate from individual institutions (Enders & Fulton, 2002). A later discussion of
38
market forces and competition within higher education may help to explain this
trend.
In an optimistic view of transnational higher education, Seidel (1991, p. 293)
claims that:
The internationalisation which characterises the relationships between
universities often does not turn out to be ‘one-sided’, but rather
bilateral or even multilateral. Many universities co-operate through
common study programmes or course modules and the awarding of
joint or dual degrees. Highly integrated arrangements for co-operation
have also developed in regional contexts, encouraging new forms of
mobility.
A special mention should be made here of distance education, a rapidly
emerging trend in higher education. When used across borders as a form of
transnational education, distance education holds the potential to radically change
how content is delivered from teacher to learner and back. Daniel (1996) claims that
an increasing proportion of university students are working adults who see regular
attendance on campus as inconvenient and not the optimal learning situation.
Arguing in favor of the potential of distance education, and describing what he calls
mega-universities—major distance learning universities with enrollments over
100,000 students, Daniel (1996, p. 9) says, “…they pose a stark challenge to the
popular quality criteria of age, exclusivity and wealth. These young institutions were
set up with the express purpose of breaking the perceived link between quality of
education and exclusivity of access.” While many of these institutions have earned
success in many ways, continuing challenges include the perception of distance
degrees as somehow inferior in quality to traditional campus-based learning,
39
problems of accreditation and acceptance of degrees, and the dominance of the
traditional view of campus-based universities (Daniel, 1996). Certainly there are
many arguments in favor of in-person teaching and learning, but an emerging body
of research is attempting to find out if there are ways in which distance education
actually engages the learner more actively in the learning process. As more and
more traditional universities, including many elite institutions, venture into distance
education technology internationally, some of these challenges may begin to be met.
The Emerging Role of Marketization
How does marketization relate to the process of internationalization? A key
component of any market-oriented approach is the expansion of market reach and
optimization of profits. Applied to higher education, some propose that universities
in the most developed countries have reached a sort of market saturation, meeting the
demand for places in universities. Not all would agree with this point, but perhaps
considering diversification of institution types (research universities, liberal arts
colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and others) one can certainly say that
access is higher in the more developed countries than in many less-developed
nations. Viewed through the lens of a market approach, institutions in the developed
countries, holding relatively more resources and in some cases prestige, see
themselves as now operating in a global higher education market. They take their
products (in this case higher education) to places where the demand is most intense
40
(Wagner, 2004). Specific programs and projects aimed at internationalizing the
university are the obvious result. According to Altbach (2002b):
Universities and academic systems seek to make themselves attractive
to overseas students and to build links with universities in other
countries to enhance their global reach. This often means teaching in
English in addition to the national language, developing the means to
market higher education programs effectively, treating intellectual
property as a commodity, and adopting strategies of profit-driven
corporations. The market and internationalization have close and
complex relationships.
Another assumption of markets is that they are assumed to have winners and
losers. This is a serious point of contention for those critical of the marketization of
higher education. The expansion of resource-laden institutions into new “markets”
with high demand for their services must, it is believed by many, squeezes out
indigenous institutions vying to meet the same demand, or even inhibits the
development of locally developed institutions in the first place. As O’Meara (2001,
p. 4) states, “As higher education responds to these market forces, a greater divide
between the have and have-not institutions will develop. Institutions with the most
prestige and strongest brand name will have greater access to capital, and those
without these assets will find their share of the market dwindling.”
At this point it is imp ortant to acknowledge the counter argument which is often
put forward concerning positive aspects of globalization and its influence on
universities. These arguments include, according to Currie, et al, (2003, p. 17):
…new technologies transforming communication processes in higher
education; the reduction of world distance due to the rapid exchange of
information; the development of global networks through the Internet,
enabling greater collaboration in research and teaching; and the
increasing mobility of students and scholars. The world can benefit
41
from international knowledge exchange, possibly developing more
open-mindedness and tolerance towards a pluralistic world. In
addition, collaboration between private and public research
laboratories may enable faster problem solving, hence finding cures
for illnesses. Thus, the use of technology is instrumental to the speed
of discovery.
While agreeing that one needs to look at globalization and its effects with a
critical eye, this author does believe that specific international endeavors within
higher education do have the potential to realize some of the positive objectives
noted here. Perhaps such utopian outcomes are a stretch, but nonetheless
international exchange would seem to be a necessary stepping stone to increased
understanding and cooperation. Stromquist (2002a) notes that educators need to be
more aware of both intended and unintended consequences of educational
innovations.
As noted earlier, internationalization and globalization are linked phenomena in
the eyes of this author. There are two ways to view this relationship. In the first
case, institutions of higher education respond to market demands of the emerging
“knowledge society” by engaging in teaching and research aimed at providing the
necessary skills and knowledge for graduates to assume coveted roles in the
economy and for institutions and even nations to compete globally for prestige and
strength. In the second case, universities are seen as the prime site for ideological
support of globalization by placing emphasis on certain fields at the expense of
others and by adopting market values such as competition and consumerism among
others. Stromquist (2002a) asserts that these dual roles are assumed simultaneously
by contemporary universities. A review of pertinent literature on the specific
42
strategies associated with internationalization indicates that many observers of these
programs and strategies view them as filling the first role (internationalization as a
response to globalization), but not necessarily the second. However, those taking a
critical approach generally agree with parameters and processes implied in
Stromquist’s framework.
At this point, a key question should be noted; one that gets at the heart of the
debate about different rationales for internationalization. John Daniel (2003, p. 37),
former Vice-Chancellor of the UK Open University and subsequently a leader at
UNESCO, commenting on UNESCO’s focus on internationalization and responses
to globalization, stated, “How do international institutions see higher education
issues in a time of accelerating globalization? Are we headed down the road to
mercantilism, or are we moving toward human sustainable development, which
acknowledges the world of higher education as having the status of a global public
good?” While it must be noted that Daniel presents this question from the standpoint
as a strident supporter of distance education as a means for expanding access to
higher education around the world, many others ask similar questions about the
purpose of including an international element in a university’s mission or strategic
plan.
This concept of mercantilism, or a market-oriented approach to higher
education, forms one of the key conceptual elements for this study. A large number
of authors have written on the general topic of marketization in higher education
over the past ten or fifteen years. For the purpose of this study, specific approaches
43
to the idea of internationalization in universities were examined through this lens to
attempt to gain a clearer understanding of why universities internationalize and how
their actions fit into overall trends in higher education.
Marketization’s Implications for the Enactment of Internationalization Strategies
The growing area of international education activities is not immune from
market forces, and may even be more apt than some other higher education
initiatives to succumb to marketization. According to Mestenhauser (1998, p. 29):
…international education, or some of its parts, is widely perceived as
designed to benefit foreigners, whether they are international students
studying here or faculty working in development projects abroad. In
reality, international student programs are fast becoming market-
oriented as institutions around the world see the presence of
international students as income producing. Unfortunately, the income
is hidden in institutional financial structures that do not connect it with
the programs.
It is not just the recruitment of foreign students that establishes
internationalization firmly in the market approach to higher education. Offshore
education programs seek to reach wider student markets, not necessarily for the
purpose of providing access to less privileged “consumers,” but more often to reach
existing markets with the requisite resources to afford often-costly imported
educational programs. Distance education, an emerging trend in higher education,
has also proven to allow institutions to expand their educational endeavors
internationally, with perhaps more potential for benefiting equity and access.
Often seen as one of the great opportunities of international education is the
ability to move education to where it is needed most. Meeting the burgeoning
44
market demand for higher education, some argue, requires that national borders be
crossed both by students, as has been happening for a long time, and by institutions,
a more recent trend. Ryan (2001, p. 123) explains:
Overseas markets, where demand for tertiary education cannot be met
locally, are already open to external providers; in some, such as Hong
Kong, the market is already saturated. In others, such as Singapore,
there is niche market potential for institutions with an existing brand
reputation. Thus, the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious
Wharton School of Business has partnered with the new private
Singapore Management University to develop a ‘US-style’ Business-
only university.
The trend appears to be for institutions setting up shop overseas to focus on fields
that allow for lucrative educational ventures. Business programs, especially MBA
degrees, are one example, and many multinational corporations will help pay their
employees’ educational costs for a professionally relevant course from a reputable
“brand-name” institution. To maintain some degree of local relevance, however, the
national governments in potential markets generally insist on a high degree of local
input in such programs, including staff and curriculum (Ryan, 2001).
Markets supposedly encourage innovation and creative approaches to solving
existing problems. Douglass (2003, p. 391) makes this point in the context of
internationalization efforts:
The service providers of tomorrow, whether publicly subsidized or
privately financed, will be niche operators. Within this environment,
research universities must become more engaged in shaping the
market. But their ability to do so will depend on their status and
strengths within the existing hierarchy of institutions, and on their
predilection for innovation.
45
The emergence of numerous for-profit educational organizations, many focused on a
global educational market, supports this claim of niche operations. For-profit
educational providers are typically very specialized in fields that ensure a solid
return on investment. Even the most prestigious traditional colleges and universities
are paying attention to these organizations due to their extremely rapid growth over
the past 10 to 20 years. Ryan (2001) sees the growing competition from for-profit
providers as both a problem and an opportunity for traditional institutions. Directing
attention specifically to “virtual universities” operating solely through distance
education methods, he states:
Although virtual universities…have been perceived as the greatest
threat to traditional universities, they have not thus far proved so, for
three reasons. First, traditional universities have moved more quickly
than expected into online provision, preventing ‘first mover advantage”:
the University of Colorado, for example, enrolls more online students
than WGU [Western Governor’s University]. Second, recognized
education ‘brand names’ are more likely to attract enrolments, and it is
difficult to establish a degree ‘brand name’ quickly, even (especially?)
in cyberspace. Finally, demand remains at a niche level…
(Ryan, 2001, p. 123)
The similarity in educational approaches being taken by various institution types
raises concerns for some. Newman & Couturier (2001), for example, worry that
traditional academic values are jeopardized through the evolution of a powerful for-
profit sector. They foresee the danger of traditional colleges and universities
becoming indistinguishable from the for-profit sector in their activities and to some
extent, their philosophies.
46
An even more critical analysis is provided by Giroux (2002, p. 432) who notes:
The legacy of public discourse appears to have faded as the U.S.
university reinvents itself by giving in to the demands of the
marketplace. Venture capitalists now scour colleges and universities
in search of big profits made through licensing agreements, the control
of intellectual property rights, and promoting and investing in
university spin-off companies. In the age of money and profit,
academic disciplines gain stature almost exclusively through their
exchange value on the market, and students now rush to take courses
and receive professional credentials that provide them with the cachet
they need to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
Global Competition in Higher Education
Most descriptions of globalization and marketization focus to some extent on the
concept of competition. When globalization is applied to higher education, this
concept remains a key point of focus and was therefore addressed in this project.
Competition within higher education takes place on multiple levels. National
systems of higher education compete with one another. Universities compete with
each other for students, research and adequate funding. Competition can be between
two or more degree programs offered by different providers or by different delivery
methods competing for the same students (Meyer, 2004). Institutions, especially
those in the industrialized countries, have begun to view their target audiences as
global in nature, rather than national. This trend is not entirely new, but the scale of
internationalization has increased rapidly in the past few decades. Departments
within a single institution compete, and even individual professors compete for
resources, recognition, and power (Stromquist, 2002a; Van Ginkel, 2003).
According to Van Ginkel (2003, p. 76):
47
Increasingly, universities must rely on their own performance in order
to secure sufficient funding for high quality programmes of teaching
and research. Increasingly, they will find themselves unprotected and
in a highly competitive world. …They have to strengthen and
diversify their external relations with stakeholders, as well as their
sources of financing. Consequently, universities must rethink their
modes of governance, their financing, their internal structures and
external relations, as well as their modes of operation.
This is where internationalization activities enter the picture. Competition
within higher education, but on a global scale, forces institutions to look beyond
national borders when identifying competitors. No longer satisfied to gain
preeminence in rankings and prestige in their home country, highly-ranked
individual universities pit themselves against top institutions from other parts of their
geographic region or the world (Engberg, 2001; Stromquist, 2002a). As Engberg
(2001, p. 9) states:
…as the cultures and peoples of the world continue to intermingle with
increasing frequency, pressures will intensify to promote international
understanding. In this changed environment, colleges and universities,
as keepers and transmitters of knowledge, must find ways to modify
their educational offerings. Those that do not run the risk of
obsolescence in an educational marketplace that increasingly values
graduates who can speak multiple languages and are cross-culturally
competent.
On a national level, countries compete for greater shares of the international
higher education market. Marginson’s (2002) description of the Australian case is
illustrative of this trend. He describes how Australia has used a strong national
policy and key market advantages such as proximity to Southeast Asia, to leverage a
greater share of the international education trade. Canada and the United Kingdom
have also been rather intentional in efforts to enhance their institutions’ involvement
48
in international partnerships (and recruitment of foreign students), while the U.S. has
not enacted strong policies and initiatives on a national level to woo a bigger share of
the market. This may be changing as many advocacy organizations within the higher
education community are urging concrete action to compete with other provider
countries.
The issue of alternate providers of higher education, as discussed earlier, has an
effect on competition, both internationally and domestically. As Newman &
Couturier (2001, p. 11) note:
Higher Education in the United States has always viewed itself as
competitive, particularly when compared to systems elsewhere in the
world. In reality, however, the competition has been muted—more
benign than ferocious, more focused on prestige than price. It has
been mitigated by tradition and governmental regulation. Now the
system is shifting steadily toward greater competition, with more
dependence on market forces and less on regulation. Most significant,
a powerful set of unprecedented forces is making the already growing
competition among traditional institutions—and between them and the
new providers of higher education—more aggressive.
In the international arena, U.S. institutions not long ago held a vast majority of the
market in international higher education. Still today, by far the largest numbers of
international students enroll in U.S. colleges and universities, but other countries are
cutting into that domination (Welch, 2002). Proponents of international higher
education activities have learned to use economic arguments when advocating for
more support for these endeavors, knowing that financial concerns often drive
institutional, and national, actions.
Other forms of international education are seeing increased competition as well.
Providers of distance education see Asia as the key battleground on which marketing
49
campaigns will be fought. With large populations and low participation rates in
higher education, countries such as China and India are seen as prime markets for
this type of educational product, much like other goods and services (Fielden, 2001).
In any competitive situation, each competitor identifies its strengths and seeks to
maximize advantage through utilizing these strengths. As providers of international
higher education, newly developed for-profit institutions are characterized by several
features that allow them to efficiently reach an international audience. These new
institutions are commercial, and typically are characterized by a high degree of
specialization of subjects and students. The target market is working adults,
including mid-career professionals. Key features include flexibility, convenience,
and relevance to professional needs. Competitive advantages include location (larger
organizations have learning centers in dozens or even hundreds of locations), access
for students (focus on online education), short length and high intensity of study, and
corporately-relevant curriculum, often customized for various corporations
(Middlehurst, 2001).
Traditional colleges and universities certainly hold their share of competitive
advantages as well. This especially holds true for highly-ranked, prestigious
institutions with names recognized around the world. As Middlehurst (2001, p. 25)
states, “A key feature of the ‘borderless’ future involves exploiting reputation or
brand image…Clearly, different universities must position themselves differently;
some will find success at the local level, others will be able to identify themselves as
global players.” In the case of the U.S., there are perhaps 25-30 universities that are
50
accorded elite status with a mostly saturated “brand recognition.” But issues of
prestige are important for other institutions as well. While many higher education
leaders denigrate the value of rankings offered by news publications and other
sources, they are quick to cite these rankings when their institution receives high
praise. A study by Meredith (2004) demonstrated that published college rankings do
cause significant effects on admission outcomes such as acceptance rates and
demographics of the student population. These rankings reach a global audience,
and play a part in the decisions students make about their educational futures. If a
highly ranked institution offers an offshore program, branch campus, or distance
education program internationally, assumptions are made about the quality of these
programs in part based on the overall brand recognition earned through decades (or
in some cases centuries) of excellence in traditional campus-based higher education.
Referring to the potentially stratifying effects of this situation (in the case of distance
education), Armstrong (2000, p. 23) explains:
…the very best students in this country increasingly seek entry into a
small number of highly prestigious universities and colleges because
of the market value of their diplomas. The number of students who
can actually get into these prestigious schools has always been limited
by the size of their geographically determined campuses, so that large
numbers of very good students are forced to go to campuses somewhat
lower on the perceived prestige scale. As a consequence, there exists a
distribution of talent across our spectrum of colleges and universities.
The equilibrium of this system, ages old, can be destabilized by IMDL
[internet-mediated distance learning]. By removing limitations on the
number of students who can be taught by a top institution or a star
professor at any one time, IMDL has the potential to exacerbate
greatly the winner-take-all tendencies of higher education, thus
becoming a very disruptive product for all but the most-highly ranked
institutions.
51
There are potential pitfalls for prestigious institutions as well. With distance
learning’s potential to provide much greater access to institutions that are highly
selective and turn most applicants away, there is the chance that these institutions’
overall brand value could be lessened. Likewise, international partnerships must be
entered into with caution, and offshore programs must be developed carefully in
order to preserve existing reputations for the universities involved.
Students as Consumers
While few studies seem to focus on the students themselves as actors within the
marketplace of higher education, one author paints a fairly cynical picture of their
contributions. Reporting on the situation in Britain, Fox (2002, p. 130), complains,
“One way that students have entered center stage is through the
marketization of higher education….The consequences of such
marketization when applied to a university means turning education on its
head. Students are no longer applicants who must demonstrate that they
deserve to be accepted as apprentices by the most advanced minds and
researchers in the field. Rather, students are the masters who must be
flattered and cajoled by humble lecturers who are warned that students
will take their ‘custom’ to other educational institutions if they are not
satisfied with the marks they receive or the way they are taught.”
Despite this view, if one accepts that higher education is becoming more market-
oriented, then students as consumers are central to the entire process. Stromquist
(2002a) refers to the concept of higher education as an “export industry.” In this
scenario, one core group of consumers of this export commodity is international
students, and their demands and aspirations must surely be treated as a powerful
influence on the course of higher education planning. As in any market, consumers
52
vote with their pocketbook. As has been mentioned here, universities are not at all
hesitant to recognize this fact and spend vast sums to gain their share of this key
market.
The idea of students as consumers has been espoused to describe the current
state of U.S. higher education, and this concept applies equally as well to
internationalization efforts. Ruther (2002, p. 40) explains:
…the institutional level is key for understanding market functions of
the national system including consumer, labor, and institutional
markets in which higher education institutions function worldwide.
The consumer market operates through students who manifest demand
through enrollment patterns into institutions as well as into degrees,
programs and classes.
In previous times, the international dimension of these markets was held back by
limited demand and high costs of entry. Only a small number of students could
afford international study, not many faculty could afford the overseas travel or
acquire the language skills required for such forms of education, and institutions did
not have the resources to maintain sufficient library and faculty resources for certain
languages and fields of study (Ruther, 2002). Obviously this is no longer the case, as
travel and communication are accessible to many and countries realize the
importance of international engagement rather than isolationism.
Consumerism effects which fields students choose to study, both domestically
and internationally. As Slaughter (2001, p. 25) points out:
As consumers, students no longer see themselves as apprentices who
come to the university to sit at the feet of distinguished scholars and
enjoy learning for its own sake. Instead, they feel compelled to
maximize their investment in education, and they migrate to high-end
professional colleges or preprofessional (law and medicine) programs.
53
As noted by Van Damme (2001), issues of affluence can determine which
students stand to gain the most from international education opportunities. He
argues that many international study programs that involve living and learning
in another country favor those students who can afford the additional expenses
of such experiences. At the same time, “…international mobility can become a
competitive advantage in a higher education system in which massification has
diminished the number of avenues open to differentiate oneself on the market
of credentials and qualifications.” (Van Damme, 2001, p. 421). These
arguments portray competition on the student-to-student level as a result of
internationalization.
While much of the discourse on consumerism and marketization focuses
on the perceived drawbacks of these trends, some point to possible
opportunities for higher education. According to some, competition can help
spur higher education to solve some of its flaws. Institutions vying for shares
of a limited market may be more apt to take measures to improve perceived
quality of their programs. Among possible improvements are reduced class
sizes, increased faculty contact, improving the quality and excitement of
teaching, and cost reduction (Newman & Couturier, 2001). It is unclear
however, specifically how internationalization efforts fare in terms of reacting
to consumerism, other than to benefit from institutions’ and nations’ efforts to
meet growing demand for higher education in different parts of the world.
54
Brand Name Recognition and the Drive for Excellence
The drive for excellence has taken on a more global focus in recent years. As
with any market-driven organization, universities now possess a drive to achieve
what Knight (2004) refers to as a strong “brand name” as an international high-
quality institution. The ultimate goals for an institution are to attract the best
students and scholars (including those from abroad) and high profile research and
training projects. On a sector-wide scale, higher education appears to be subject to
even greater polarity in terms of prestige and reputation between the top-tier
institutions and all the rest. Stromquist (2002a) argues:
A consequence of the growing culture of assessment and competition
is the inordinate importance given to ‘excellence.’ Although, of
course, everyone would like to excel, the use of rankings makes it an
unattainable goal for most since by definition this procedure produces
a hierarchy, with the implication that those below a certain position
(perhaps below twentieth or thirtieth place in the case of U.S.
universities) are less-than-excellent institutions.
Internationalization comes into play here when institutions focus on marketing
their brand name globally. Many of the programmatic initiatives described earlier
are seen as tools for increasing a university’s brand name around the world, with the
promise of academic and financial benefits to the institution.
Conclusion
This chapter began with a discussion of four categories of rationales for
internationalization in higher education: political, economic, social/cultural, and
academic. The importance of rationales cannot be understated because this
55
determines the specific programmatic outcomes desired by institutions that embark
on the pursuit of an international strategy. While each institution that is attempting
to become more internationalized does so for its own reasons, and many share
similar rationales, the shape that internationalization takes varies widely depending
on the setting, existing strengths, organizational structure, and agendas of various
actors within the institution. The issues presented here concerned with
marketization’s focus on competition, consumerism and branding are intended as a
framework for understanding why institutions enact internationalization strategies.
What is known is that there is a current trend in higher education to view
offshore educational programs, including international distance education and
overseas executive courses among others, as attractive opportunities for expanded
institutional presence abroad. The worldwide demand for higher education is
growing as those in developing countries seek training to meet the needs of emerging
economies. In an increasingly competitive higher education marketplace, institutions
are striving to increase their brand recognition in target areas where large numbers of
potential consumers exist.
Internationalization is also seen as a way in which institutions can increase their
prestige and the perception of their overall quality. With internationalization seen as
an important element of institutional excellence, most universities are paying more
attention to this element of their missions and strategic plans. Most research
institutions, in particular, are initiating formal internationalization strategies and
56
programs. Most agree that global awareness is valuable for students, and they
support activities which can help bring this about.
However, the picture painted by the literature on internationalization is not a
complete one. What is missing are in depth studies of how individual institutions
define this nebulous concept, the promise they see in internationalization, and the
specific outcomes from an organizational, curricular, and programmatic standpoint.
Institutions that are engaging in international teaching and research are not just
interested in helping their students develop more awareness of global issues.
Instead, they are in the process of positioning their institutions to take advantage of
demographic trends and to achieve higher levels of recognition nationally and
internationally. How they choose to go about doing this, and the results that are
produced, vary among institutions.
57
Chapter Three
Research Design and Methodology
Research Approach
A qualitative, primarily inductive approach was taken in this research project.
While national data show certain trends that may be in part mirrored at this
institution, the case study approach (as described by Yin, 1994) allows for deeper
investigation of issues that are specific to the institutional setting. This is a
descriptive, exploratory study, illuminating issues that are appropriate for further,
more detailed research.
Primary methods employed include document analysis and interviews with
administrators, international program staff, and faculty in key departments across the
university.
Methodology
Setting for Case Study
The institution selected for analysis, the University of Southern California, is an
excellent setting for such a project, having explicitly committed to advancing its
international endeavors in mission statements and strategic plans dating back at least
two decades. In its 1994 Strategic Plan, USC listed internationalization as one of
four primary strategic initiatives to guide the university for the next ten-year period.
The other three strategic initiatives focused on undergraduate education,
58
interdisciplinary research and education, and programs building on the resources of
its urban location. The internationalization strategic initiative states,
Build upon USC’s strong international base of alumni, students, and
established relationships and Southern California’s position as an
international center to enhance future global opportunities for
education, research, and career development. Because of the
characteristics of Southern California and of our students and alumni,
focus efforts on the countries of the Pacific Rim and of Central and
South America.
USC is a large, private research university with a total enrollment of about
30,000 students, nearly evenly split between undergraduates and graduate students.
Located in the urban setting of Los Angeles, the university is comprised of the
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences plus 17 professional schools, including
Business, Engineering, Education, Medicine, Law, and others.
This study examines the time period from 1990-2005. During the period of this
study, USC has embarked upon a concerted effort to raise its institutional reputation
to compete with the most elite universities in the U.S. Indeed many outside
organizations and publications have moved the university up in national rankings
during this period. The academic profile of the undergraduate student body has
improved greatly and competition for spaces in the freshman class is now intense. A
major capital fundraising campaign from 1993 to 2002 raised nearly 3 billion dollars,
at that time the largest such campaign in the history of American higher education.
It appears that the internationalization effort is likewise seen as another avenue for
increasing USC’s profile and gaining a competitive edge with other “peer”
institutions. It is believed at USC that in the future, the best research universities
59
will be those that have established a global presence. This global presence, in turn,
is seen as a key factor in improving the overall quality of the university’s educational
experience. By choosing to examine change over the past fifteen years , it was
possible to identify some actors who have been affiliated with the university for all
or most of that time period, allowing for long-term perspectives to be gathered. At
the same time, a presidential transition in the early 1990s brought about further
changes and a new strategic planning process. This key period is a special focus of
the study, as many of today’s administrative, programmatic and curricular initiatives
appear to have emerged from this time. A fifteen-year window provides an
opportunity to investigate the phenomenon of internationalization during this
important transition period at the institution.
It is important to note that the researcher for this study is employed at the
University of Southern California, and has worked in the area of international
programs at the institution for twelve years. The researcher’s familiarity with the
institution and access to study participants was helpful to the data gathering process.
While the potential risk existed for researcher bias due to this relationship, measures
intended to ensure trustworthiness of data were employed (these will be discussed in
a subsequent section.)
60
Data Resources
Interviews
While a growing number of institutions of higher education are including
internationalization among their key objectives, this concept is not defined the same
way in different settings, and varied strategies and goals are employed in different
settings. The choice of interviews as one method of data collection was intended to
provide a means of investigating the specific definitions adopted by decision-makers
at USC and what type of programmatic initiatives were most attractive to various
actors within the institution. Interviews also allowed the researcher to gather
perceptions of the institution’s success or failure in meeting the objectives of people
with various positions within the university.
Interviews with administrators, faculty, and international programs staff
included representatives from the following groups
Central administrators. (6 participants)
This group included upper-level administrators with broad responsibility for the
academic and programmatic direction of the university, including some at the Vice
Presidential level and many with direct reports to the Provost.
Academic Unit Administrators. (7 participants)
The academic unit administrator subgroup included top leadership positions
within several of USC’s individual schools. Deans or associate deans from the
following schools were included: Annenberg School for Communication, Viterbi
School of Engineering, Marshall School of Business, Law School, School of Social
61
Work, and College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. These schools were selected
because they represented a diverse group of fields and disciplines, and they were
assumed to be interested and involved in international activities.
Faculty. (10 participants)
The 10 faculty participants represented six different schools within the
university, including the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences; Rossier School of
Education; School of Policy, Planning and Development; School of Social Work;
Keck School of Medicine; and School of Fine Arts. Length of time at USC varied
from two years to over 40 years.
Program Staff. (11 participants)
Among the international programs staff interviewed were those responsible for
various study abroad programs for undergraduate and/or graduate students, advisors
of international students, coordinators of transnational partnerships and exchanges,
student recruitment staff, and coordinators of English language instruction programs
for foreign students/visitors. These staff members are largely responsible for
carrying out the various international initiatives of the university, and in many cases
making decisions about programs and content. Their interpretation of USC’s
strategic plans, and their reactions to the direction provided by administrators, were
useful to investigate.
A number of key issues were addressed with the central administrators and
academic unit administrators. The aim was to discern what types of changes have
occurred at the institution as a result of the internationalization initiative, and how
62
these changes have been received by various actors. Key issues included the
institution’s rationale for internationalization, intended outcomes of such efforts, and
the effects of market/consumer issues on internationalization. Of utmost importance
when interviewing administrators was the topic of administrative reorganization.
Among the primary queries related to this issue were matters of who leads this
initiative, level of centralization or decentralization in decision-making, to what
extent existing organizational structures allow for pursuit of the initiative, and any
changes that have been made or proposed. Other administrative issues included
finding out what new positions have been created and what have been the results of
such changes.
In addition to covering some of the same points with program staff that were
addressed with upper-level administrators, another issue examined was how program
staff perceive their efforts fitting into the overall strategy. Many program staff at the
university have occupied their positions for a considerable time period – in some
cases the entire fifteen - year period of this study. Their reactions to the
internationalization strategy is a necessary key to understanding its overall
effectiveness.
Also related to administrative reorganization is the issue of whether any new
formal structures, advisory committees, or reporting arrangements have been
developed. How does the institution evaluate its own progress on this initiative, and
does this differ in any way from how other key institutional initiatives are directed
and assessed? Where do administrators, faculty, staff and students fit within the
63
overall strategy of internationalizing the campus? Whose voices are heard the
loudest and why, and are there any constituencies that perceive their roles as
undervalued? These issues were included in interviews with all participants.
To examine innovation and new strategies for internationalizing the university,
both administrators and program staff were asked about new initiatives, programs,
and centers that have sprung from the recent stated interest in the international
dimensions of the university. Where new programs were identified, this study
attempted to learn the origin of the models employed (developed within the
institution or copied from others). An important issue is the intentionality of specific
programmatic efforts to internationalize. Do the institution’s key leaders have
specific programmatic endeavors in mind that they are working to support, or is the
internationalization strategy seen as a more general encouragement for schools and
departments to follow in whatever direction they choose? The key question here is
how each of the key actors would define success in the international mission.
Besides examining just the newly developed programs, it was useful to look at
some programs or centers that were in place prior to the period of this study. In
these cases, a key issue for investigation was to find out how these programs are
faring under the supposed increase in attention to international efforts. The staff who
lead these programs were asked about any improvements that have resulted from the
formal internationalization strategy, and any cases where they perceive their
programs to be more marginalized than before. Do they find resources easier to
64
come by, or have newer programs in other schools and departments assumed
positions of greatest favor with the institution’s key decision makers?
Document analysis
Universities intent on pursuing internationalization strategies generally include
these goals in their formal missions, strategic planning documents, and other publicly
available documents. These sources of evidence can offer a glimpse of the priorities
chosen by the institution, and what is not included can be just as illuminating. For
this reason, several recent strategic plans of the university were analyzed, along with
additional documents that informed the strategic planning process and show the
discourse on internationalization among various members of the university
community.
Specific materials reviewed through content analysis included:
USC Strategic Plans from 1990 to present.
Evaluation reports on strategic initiatives.
Documents proposing programmatic developments related to
internationalization.
The key in conducting content analysis is to search for patterns and themes that
emerge from the data observed (Patton, 1987). In this case study, texts were
reviewed for indications of the following:
Prominence of internationalization as an element of the listed documents.
Rationales for internationalization.
65
Definitions of internationalization.
Specific programmatic examples used to illustrate success in
internationalization.
Specific goals and objectives (vis-à-vis internationalization) outlined in
the documents.
Identification of key actors (in written documents, who is charged to lead
and carry out internationalization?).
Acknowledged challenges or obstacles to internationalization.
The issue of which fields of study receive emphasis in regard to
internationalization was addressed with the subjects in this study. Have the key
facilitators of the international mission identified particular schools and disciplines
as top priority for internationalization? If so, why were certain fields chosen for
emphasis? To what extent does competition with other institutions for prestige, top
students, and top faculty factor into these decisions? Is there a perception of special
attention being given to some fields at the expense, or at least exclusion, of others?
Another area of investigation with written documents selected for analysis
relates to their origin. Who authored the documents? From where and whom did the
content come? Is there a central source for such messages during the period of this
study, or do documents show that different sets of actors have been communicating
different messages about the topic of internationalization?
66
Data Collection
Interviews were conducted with a total of 34 subjects. These interviews took
place over a period of 4 months. Potential interview participants were sent an email
letter inviting them to take part in the study. Invitees who did not respond were
contacted by follow-up phone call. If there was no response after the email and
phone call, it was assumed the person was not interested or available to participate.
Some invitees declined to participate, usually because they did not have time. A few
declined due to their view that others would be better able to respond to the questions
proposed. Other invitees expressed interest in the study, but were unavailable to
participate due to their absence from the campus due to sabbatical leaves.
Response rates to invitations to participate are outlined below:
Table 1. Interview Invitations and Response Rates, by Participant Sub-group
Response
Sub-group Invited Yes % Yes No % No
No
reply
% No
Reply
Central
Administrators
8 6 75% 1 12.5% 1 12.5%
Academic Unit
Administrators
9 7 77.7% 1 11.1% 1 11.1%
Faculty 18 10 55.5% 3 16.7% 5 27.8%
Program Staff 13 11 84.6% 0 0% 2 15.4%
Totals 48 34 70.8% 5 10.4% 9 18.8%
67
A semi-structured interview format was used, with protocols employed to guide
questioning (See Appendices A, B, & C). It is important to note, however, that the
researcher took a flexible approach to the interviews with various subjects. The
interview protocol, also referred to by some researchers as an interview guide, was
intended only as a launching point and a list of themes to cover in the interviews.
Questions were asked in different orders depending on the flow of the conversation,
some questions were not asked of each participant, and new lines of questioning
were added as a result of issues introduced by the subject in the course of an
interview (Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Mason, 1996). According to Patton (1987, p.
111), “The advantage of an interview guide is that it makes sure the interviewer has
carefully decided how best to use the limited time available in an interview situation.
The interview guide helps make interviewing different people more systematic and
comprehensive by delimiting the issues to be discussed in the interview.”
At the beginning of each interview, participants read and signed a consent form.
Participants were informed of the confidentiality measures employed in this study
both in writing in the consent form and orally by the researcher at the start of the
interview. Interviewees were not told the names of other participants in this study,
even when some asked the researcher for this information.
Yin (1994) identifies six sources of evidence in case study research:
documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant-
observation, and physical artifacts. He notes that particular strengths of interviews
are that they are targeted—focusing directly on the case study topic, and insightful—
68
providing perceived causal inferences. Potential weaknesses of interviews include
response bias, inaccuracies due to poor recall, and reflexivity—the interviewee
giving what the interviewer wants to hear (Yin, 1994). One way to address these
concerns is to corroborate evidence gained from interviews with data from other
sources. In regard to reflexivity, a key strategy to help avoid this problem is to stay
away from leading questions, which communicate to the interviewee what you
believe to be a preferable answer (Lofland & Lofland, 1995).
In this study interviews were audio recorded (with permission from the subjects)
and transcribed in full detail. Thirty-two of the thirty-four interview subjects in this
study agreed to be audio-taped during their interviews. Notes were also taken during
the interviews to help guide questioning and to facilitate coding and analysis of
emerging themes. The researcher also reviewed notes and transcripts as soon as
possible after each interview. By doing so the researcher was able to begin coding
early in the interview process, allowing emerging concepts and themes to play a part
in the design of subsequent interviews.
Content analysis, also referred to as document analysis, is another key tool used
in this study. Yin (1994) lists the following among the strengths of what he refers to
as documentation: stable—can be reviewed repeatedly, unobtrusive—not created as
a result of this case study, exact—contains exact names, references, and details of an
event, and broad coverage—long span of time, many events, and many settings.
Among the weaknesses he indicates for this source of evidence are potentially low
retrievability or intentionally blocked access to documents, biased selectivity (if
69
collection is incomplete), and reporting bias (unknown bias of author). In the
context of this proposed study, each of these issues was addressed. Retrievability
and access were not major concerns. Many of the documents reviewed were
publicly available in print form or as online documents, and the researcher’s
familiarity with several key informants allowed for access to other documents. As
for biased selectivity, an attempt was made to collect many important documents that
help to illustrate the process of internationalization at USC as it has developed over
the past two decades. However, since most of the documents were materials
intended for wide dissemination at the time they were created, the potential for
reporting bias is more of a concern. One way to guard against this problem is to ask
oneself why a document was created and what its purpose was. Certainly strategic
plans are produced with the intent to achieve a specific objective. In this respect,
reporter bias is not so much a weakness in this case study but it is one of the issues to
be researched.
Data Analysis
The common challenge to qualitative researchers is to make sense of large
amounts of data, including interview transcripts and document texts. Through a
process of coding, data can be organized in a way to offer explanations and insight
into a selected phenomenon. Strauss and Corbin (1998) define coding as, “The
analytic processes through which data are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated
to form theory.” (p. 3). In a formative analysis process, in which the data are
70
examined as they are being collected and the data collection tools are adjusted
accordingly to gain a richer understanding of the phenomenon under study, coding
and analysis should be carried out in stages. Lofland and Lofland (1995) identify
two stages as initial coding and focused coding. In initial coding, the researcher
applies numerous and varied categories and themes to the emerging data to begin to
conceptualize key points in the analysis. This is often done after the first several
interviews or as the first set of documents is reviewed, allowing for more direct
treatment of questions that prove to elicit data which demonstrate important trends or
themes. In focused coding, the intent is to refine categories of data, in some cases
elaborating and adding categories, while also dropping those that are not deemed
useful. Focused coding may take place concurrently with data collection as a wider
array of data are amassed, and continues as the research moves beyond data
collection to more comprehensive analysis.
Different authors on qualitative methodology use alternate terms to describe a
very similar process. Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe open and axial coding as
two methods or stages in analysis and categorization of data. Open coding is
identified as, “the analytical process through which concepts are identified and their
properties and dimensions are discovered in data” (p. 101). Axial coding is defined
as, “the process of relating categories to their subcategories, termed ‘axial’ because
coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking categories at the level of
properties and dimensions…The purpose of axial coding is to begin the process of
reassembling data that were fractured during open coding” (p. 123).
71
As a tool for analysis, data that have been coded are typically placed into some
type of graphical representation. Lofland and Lofland (1995) refer to this process as
diagramming, and they describe four major forms of this process: typologizing,
matrix making, concept charting, and flow charting. This tool was used in the study
when forming an analysis of the data as it was being collected.
As mentioned previously, this study employs aspects of both deductive and
inductive research. A large body of literature has already addressed the general
concepts being investigated, so many ideas about what internationalization means
and why it happens are already on the table. At the same time, until data were
collected, the researcher could not say with certainty that only specific, pre-
determined categories of information would be obtained. Universities are complex
institutions with multi-faceted missions, settings, and histories. The purpose of a
case study approach to the questions presented in this study was partly to seek any
unforeseen issues that may be influencing the course of internationalization as
defined by this one institution. A flexible approach to coding and analysis of data
served to facilitate this purpose. As will be shown in Chapter Five, in some cases
interview participants brought new themes into the discussion that were not major
concerns of the researcher at the project’s outset.
Trustworthiness of Data
Issues of reliability and validity of data and analysis are of concern to all
researchers, regardless of the methodological approach they employ. To
72
demonstrate reliability, particularly in the case of qualitative research, one must
show that, “…data generation and analysis have not only been appropriate to the
research questions, but also thorough, careful, honest, and accurate (as distinct from
true or correct – terms which many qualitative researchers would, of course, wish to
reject” (Mason, 1996, p. 146). Yin (1994, p. 36) explains that for case study
research, “The objective is to be sure that, if a later investigator followed exactly the
same procedures as described by an earlier investigator and conducted the same case
study all over again, the later investigator should arrive at the same findings and
conclusions.” The primary tactics that were in this study to enhance reliability
include using routine procedures for data collection, coding and analysis, and clearly
explaining these methods in the research report. This transparency should assist a
reader in understanding clearly how the data were collected and conclusions reached.
Another strategy used was member checking, or what LeCompte and Goetz (1982)
refer to as participant researchers. This strategy involves the researcher requesting
reactions to working analyses from selected participants during the course of the
study. As LeCompte and Goetz (1982, p. 42) note, “In this way confirmation may be
sought for various levels of the collection and analysis process: description of events
and interactions, interpretations of participant meanings, and explanations for overall
structures and processes.”
According to Mason (1996, p. 146), judgments of validity are, “judgments
about whether you are measuring, or explaining, what you claim to be measuring or
explaining.” One key method used here to combat threats to validity is data
73
triangulation (Denzin, 1978). In essence, this refers to collecting multiple kinds of
data on the same research question(s). As discussed earlier, data collected from
interviews and documents was compared and contrasted to enhance the validity of
conclusions reached. Another approach was to present a clear context for the data
collected when analyzing and reporting on the research. One such area for concern
relates to the issue of temporal sampling—the time context for data collection. In
reaching conclusions and reporting them, issues of time context are addressed.
Specifically in this case, it is important to note the timing of key administrative
actions and communications regarding internationalization and the proximity of such
actions to the data collection process. For example, what major documents have
been released during or immediately preceding the collection of data, and how might
this timing affect the responses given?
Three developments close to the time of this study had the potential to affect the
responses from administrators, faculty and staff. First, the 2004 strategic plan was
introduced only a few months before the data collection phase of this study. The
Mexico City international office opened partway through the interview schedule. At
the very end of the data collection phase a new Provost took office. This last change
will certainly have an influence on the future direction of internationalization at
USC, as the Provost directs many of the initiatives that fall within this area of
emphasis, as well as supervision of all academic Deans.
LeCompte and Goetz (1982) refer to history and maturation as changes over
time that occur in the overall social scene (history) or progressive development in
74
individuals (maturation). Each can be a threat to internal validity in qualitative
research. Conducting a study of limited duration is one method for combating such
threats that will be used in the project. The rather short period for gathering of
interview data kept these issues to a minimum.
Careful selection of specific interviewees and documents for analysis are another
way to demonstrate validity (Patton, 1987; Mason, 1996). The rationale for selection
of subjects presented earlier in this report addres ses this is sue. Finally, feedback was
utilized throughout the research process to help identify misguided assumptions and
researcher or respondent biases that may pose challenges to the demonstration of
validity.
Participant Confidentiality
Anonymity of interview subjects was protected throughout the research process.
Only the researcher and the dissertation chair knew the actual identities of
interviewees. All transcripts, coding analysis documents, and the final written report
include pseudonyms or generic categories to refer to interview subjects. Subjects are
identified as central administrators, academic unit administrators, program staff, or
faculty, and their responses are identified only by the field or school (faculty and
academic unit administrators) or programmatic area of responsibility (staff).
Since the number of deans at USC is very small, and as only three deans
participated in the study, their gender has been disguised in the data presentation to
follow. Likewise, very few of the central administrators at the institution are female,
75
so to minimize the risk of violating the promise of confidentiality, use of gendered
pronouns has been avoided in the data presentation for this subgroup. For academic
unit administrators, their school affiliation is not included in the data presentation. A
similar confidentiality precaution was taken with central administrators by not
divulging their specific job titles when presenting interview responses. In summary,
in any cases where the researcher was concerned about potential identification of
interviewees, confidentiality took precedence over disclosure, even when this limited
the reader’s knowledge about the interview subject that might have provided a
deeper understanding of their stated perspectives.
76
Chapter Four
The Emergence and Evolution of Internationalization
in the Strategic Planning Process
The University of Southern California has enacted three strategic plans in the
past twelve years. The 1994 strategic plan formalized USC’s commitment to
internationalization as one of four key strategic initiatives. Four years later, the 1998
plan provided an in-process evaluation of progress made toward the 1994 initiatives,
and introduced four new “critical pathways” of opportunity that integrated and
expanded upon the earlier objectives. Most recently, in 2004, the latest strategic plan
made a case for how USC can become one of the world’s great universities for the
21
st
century, again including substantial attention to USC’s global presence as a key
approach which can help lead the university to this ambitious goal. Each of these
three documents will be discussed here, with special focus placed on the
international/global aspects of each, and the practical steps outlined in each plan that
have been intended to further USC’s worldwide connections and reputation over the
past dozen years and into the future. Additionally, several other documents
produced during the period of this study, including some specifically intended to
inform the strategic planning process, will be presented and discussed here.
77
1994 Strategic Plan: The Strategic Plan of the University of Southern California
USC’s 1994 Strategic Plan was adopted by the university’s Board of Trustees on
June 8, 1994, three years after the installation of a new university president. This
document outlined four strategic initiatives designed to guide the institution. The
four strategic initiatives are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. USC Strategic Plan, 1994 – Strategic Initiatives
Initiative Description
Initiative 1:
Undergraduate
education
Provide a distinctive undergraduate experience built on excellent
liberal arts (the term includes the humanities, the natural sciences, and
the social sciences) and professional programs, incorporating a
characteristic “USC core” liberal education and providing unique
opportunities for career preparation through innovative collaborations
between the liberal arts and our diverse array of professional schools.
Initiative 2:
Interdisciplinary
research and
education
Create the organizational flexibility, and capacity for teamwork, to
become a world center for innovative interdisciplinary research and
education in selected areas. Emphasize programs that span the
spectrum from basic to applied research and programs with a high
degree of societal relevance.
Initiative 3:
Programs building
upon the resources
of Southern
California and Los
Angeles
Create programs of research and education that utilize and contribute
to the special characteristics of Southern California and Los Angeles as
a center of urban issues, multiculturalism, arts, entertainment,
communications, and business.
Initiative 4:
Internationalization
Build upon USC’s strong international base of alumni, students, and
established relationships and Southern California’s position as an
international center to enhance future global opportunities for
education, research, and career development. Because of the
characteristics of Southern California and of our students and alumni,
focus efforts on the countries of the Pacific Rim and of Central and
South America.
Note. The Strategic Plan of the University of Southern California. University of Southern California,
2004, p. 2
78
Each of these strategic initiatives was intended to build upon existing strengths
of the university identified at the time. In relation to the internationalization strategy,
the plan noted that:
USC is already very international, having the largest number of foreign
graduates of any U.S. university and a very large number of faculty with
foreign connections. (The Strategic Plan of the University of Southern
California, 1994, p. 1).
The 1994 plan outlined several external circumstances and trends that helped to
shape the chosen initiatives. Among these trends are two that appear directly related
to a rationale for increased focus on internationalization.
Competition for students, resources, and visibility
Excess capacity in private higher education is leading to greater competition
for students and resources. As a result, university reputation and image have
become more important than ever before. In an era of intense competition
and scarce resources, it will be difficult for the second- and third-tier
institutions to survive.
Globalization of knowledge, careers, students, and alumni
Globalization is affecting every facet of university education and research.
Information is being shared across borders, international research
collaborations are common, and students frequently come from overseas or
work overseas. These changes place new demands on the content and
process of education, on the relevant agendas for research, on the training and
support for faculty, and on the links between the university and diverse
communities in the U.S. and overseas.
(The Strategic Plan of the University of Southern California, 1994, p. 3).
These pressures leading to the commitment to internationalize must be
understood within the context of the central goal described in the plan—to elevate
the university’s prestige in such a way as to make it one of the elite universities in
the U.S. As stated in the 1994 plan:
Our goal is to seize those new opportunities that will enable USC to move
over the next decade to a position of academic excellence that will define it
79
clearly as one of the leading private research universities in America. (The
Strategic Plan of the University of Southern California, 1994, p. 4).
The link between all four of the 1994 strategic initiatives and the desire of
USC’s leadership to raise the external image of the university comes as no surprise,
as a strategic plan in any organization should help leaders to make decisions in the
best interest of the institution, often with particular attention paid to the status of the
organization vis-à-vis its competitors. It is important to note, however, that in 1994,
USC was attempting the quite difficult feat of cracking into the top rankings of the
very best research universities.
The 1994 strategic plan listed six specific strategies intended to carry out the
internationalization initiative:
1. Foster international involvement in the Pacific Rim and Latin America
through research and teaching.
2. Build connections with universities, communities, alumni and
corporations abroad to increase research collaborations; attract students,
postdoctoral fellows, and visiting faculty of high quality; and develop
opportunities in other countries for USC faculty and students.
3. Create internal structures and policies that support educational and
research linkages abroad and that coordinate major international activities
across schools.
4. Create closer relationships with communities in Southern California that
have strong ties to the countries of the Pacific Rim and Latin America.
5. Utilize the emerging global communications infrastructure to create new
types of linkages with foreign universities and researchers, and to
investigate the possibilities of global teaching.
6. Foster programs on campus that bring international and domestic students
into closer contact, and that create an environment which is especially
attractive to the very best international students.
(The Strategic Plan of the University of Southern California, 1994, p. 7).
The first item on the list of specific strategies above, referring to the Pacific Rim
and Latin America, marks the formalization of an effort to solidify strong ties in
80
these geographic regions. This idea of a university-wide specialization in Asia and
Latin America (more so Asia to date) is a key theme which reappears in the
subsequent strategic planning documents, as well as in this study’s interviews with
administrators, faculty and staff. Clearly USC has set its sites on the Pacific Rim as
its best market for internationalization and has directed attention and resources
accordingly.
Item 6 above was also of great interest to interview participants, especially
central administrators and program staff. Based on most participants’ comments,
relationships between international and domestic students do not seem to have been
strengthened a great deal in the eleven years since the 1994 strategic plan was
introduced. Clearly this is an issue that the university is still struggling with and
effective strategies are proving difficult to find.
The 1994 strategic plan included a set of specific plans for action, including
establishment of special committees, new programs, administrative appointments,
and assessments. Twenty-eight plans of action were included, with each attached to
one or more of the four strategic initiatives. The distribution of these plans for action
indicate that the initiatives related to undergraduate education and interdisciplinary
research and education were more thoroughly developed with specific objectives in
mind at the time of the document’s release. Sixteen of the items were tied to
undergraduate education, and twelve related to interdisciplinary activities.
Conversely, the other two initiatives were each affiliated with eight plans for action.
Among those most closely tied to internationalization were the following:
81
IV.1.7 We are preparing a thorough inventory of existing international
involvements as a basis for further action, which may range from increased
study abroad, to international television downlinks, to major academic
partnerships (procedure now in draft).
IV.2.6 Following from IV.1.7, coordinate further efforts in
internationalization from the provost’s office. Create advisory councils
specific to selected regions of the globe. Review reports in recent years from
the International Education Committee for updating and implementation of
specific recommendations.
IV.3.3 Conduct a major review of the general alumni organization, including
its information base, emphasizing continuing contact with alumni. Revive
relationships with alumni in foreign countries. Involve alumni more fully in
recruiting, mentoring, internships, placement, fund raising, etc. Develop a
wider range of cultural and intellectual activities targeted to alumni. Use
successful alumni as more visible representatives of the university.
(The Strategic Plan of the University of Southern California, 1994, pp. 9-10).
The first item above indicates that in 1994, USC was still in a process of
evaluating existing strengths in this area and looking for ways to enhance the
international involvement and global profile of the university. Comments from
campus leaders involved in this study indicate that this process continues today, with
most of the focus on allowing individual academic units to experiment with new
international initiatives that may have implications for other schools on campus.
Interestingly, one central administrator noted that an extensive survey of
international involvements was completed, but was of very little use.
The second item, which mentions the provost’s office role in
internationalization, was acted upon formally in 1994 with the establishment of a
new administrative position titled Vice Provost for International Affairs. While
opinions of study participants nearly a decade later vary on the actual effects of
82
establishing this position, it did signify a more central commitment to fostering
international activities on campus.
The third item, alumni programs, expressed USC’s intention of better utilizing
this enormous potential resource to further all activities of the university, not only in
the international arena. In practice, the efforts of the past decade related to
international alumni have almost exclusively focused on those in the Asian Pacific
Rim. While such initiatives as the opening of several offices in Asia made some
strides in this regard (since alumni outreach is one of their primary charges), many
participants in this study felt that much more needs to be done to more fully integrate
foreign graduates of USC into the university’s varied activities.
A final note on the 1994 strategic plan concerns the terminology employed.
Specifically, the document uses the term internationalization in a similar manner to
the definitions offered in this study, referring to the myriad activities that involve
exchange, partnerships, and networks abroad, as well as campus-based learning of an
international and comparative nature. The term globalization is used only briefly in
describing societal forces in commerce, communication and technology that are
making it imperative for higher education institutions to rethink what they do in
response to these developments. As will be noted below, the language USC presents
in its formal documents today, including the strategic plan, has shifted in the past
decade, again reflective to some extent to the predominant discourse on
international/global education.
83
1998 Strategic Plan: Four-Year Report on the 1994 Strategic Plan
As the middle of three strategic planning documents examined here, USC’s 1998
strategic plan stands as a kind of mid-term progress report on the initiatives
presented in 1994, and this document reads as such, as the title would indicate. It
also refines the previous four strategic initiatives into a new set of four critical
pathways of opportunity. These critical pathways are identified in Table 3.
Table 3. USC Strategic Plan, 1998 – Critical Pathways
Critical Pathway Description
1. Communication Understanding and helping to solve technical, social,
cultural, legal and political issues of communications
in its many forms.
2. Life Sciences Coordinating and building on considerable expertise
in the life sciences ranging from the basic biological
sciences to clinical and engineering applications.
3. The Arts Coalescing our considerable strengths in the arts to
move USC to the center of the cultural stage in Los
Angeles.
4. The Urban Paradigm Exploring how complex urban environments function
and how to improve them.
Note. Four-Year Report on the 1994 Strategic Plan. University of Southern California, 1998.
Like the 1994 strategic plan, this document attempts to identify current existing
strengths, and competitive advantages held by USC and how best to exploit those
strengths in the coming years. Much like the Pacific Rim emphasis of four years
earlier, the critical pathways presented in 1998 signify an intention to focus efforts
84
and resources into a limited number of strategic areas, hoping to elevate the strength
in these areas before expanding to other fields.
The focus on urban issues in this document is an example of attention to solving
societal problems that would resurface in much greater detail in the 2004 strategic
plan. While the document still clearly uses competition with other institutions as a
primary rationale for all of the strategic endeavors and critical pathways selected, the
language in this document is less overtly focused on the university’s rapidly rising
level of prestige in the U.S. and around the world. As such, it is a more pragmatic
document, especially considering the inclusion of several potential areas of difficulty
that could hinder the implementation of the 1994 initiatives and the 1998 pathways.
The areas of difficulty identified include the following:
1. Graduate and post-doctoral student support
2. Information technology
3. Responsibility center management
4. Improved utilization and planning of physical plant
(Four-Year Report on the 1994 Strategic Plan, 1998)
The third factor listed above, referred to at USC as responsibility center
management, but more generally as revenue center management (RCM), brings up
an issue that emerged in this study’s interviews as being of interest to most people on
campus involved with implementing aspects of the internationalization initiative:
administrative decentralization. As noted in this document, RCM reflects the
decentralized nature of the university’s academic governance, and is a constant point
of concern for those who seek to corral resources and expertise from disparate parts
of the campus in order to effectively and efficiently pursue innovative approaches to
85
international education. The strategic initiatives of internationalization and
interdisciplinary activities would appear to be ideally suited to support each other,
but in practice the interdisciplinary and collaborative openness required has not yet
become institutionalized in a manner to fully support internationalization. Staff
members striving to set up new study abroad and international exchange programs
still feel limited by the decentralized nature of the university, and many seek stronger
ties across the campus. Some faculty struggle with decentralization as well, finding
it difficult to form easy partnerships with colleagues in other academic units for
various international research projects that require input from experts from a variety
of fields and disciplines. Given the typical complexities of establishing partnerships
with counterparts in foreign countries, the fact that it can be equally difficult to enact
collaborations on the home campus are discouraging to many. This issue is one that
has received substantial attention in each of the three strategic planning documents
examined here, and there are significant examples of initiatives within the university
over the past 10 years which aim to combat this limitation. The leadership of USC
appears to recognize that only through truly collaborative and interdisciplinary work
can some of the most ambitious goals outlined in the various planning documents be
achieved. Work on this task continues today, and is exemplified by the periodic
opening of new issue-oriented centers at USC that promote and support research and
teaching, sometimes including international projects.
86
The 1998 strategic plan added to the 1994 document by offering some additional
specific goals and objectives related to internationalization. The following seven
items were identified as key actions to be pursued:
1. Continue to build needed expertise in international areas by using bridge
funding from the Provost’s office to hire faculty with appropriate
backgrounds in selected disciplines.
2. Improve effectiveness of our efforts by creating internal structures and
policies that coordinate major international activities across schools.
3. Improve “hands-on” learning about international issues by increasing the
number of undergraduates taking a semester abroad by at least 50 per
year (currently only about 200 of our undergraduate students take a
semester abroad in any given year), and by encouraging other schools to
create programs along the model of the Marshall School’s PRIME
program that provides international experience and learning for all of its
full-time MBA students.
4. Help all of our students benefit from our strong international student body
by fostering programs on campus that bring international and domestic
students into closer contact, and encourage and enable each group to learn
from the other. Construction of an internationally-themed residential
college will be a very important component of this effort.
5. Build closer relationships with communities in Southern California that
have strong ties to countries in the Pacific Rim and Latin America in
order to open new possibilities for recruitment, research, and teaching.
6. Continue to utilize the emerging global communications infrastructure to
create new types of linkages with foreign universities and researchers,
and to offer USC-based instruction in other countries.
7. Continue to strengthen our international alumni network in order to
enhance our presence around the Pacific Rim and of Central and South
America.
(Four-Year Report on the 1994 Strategic Plan, 1998)
Several of these anticipated actions from the 1998 document were raised by
interview participants in discussing the current progress of internationalization at
USC. While these impressions will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, a
few specific reactions are briefly summarized here. Item #1 has received mixed
reviews, with some lauding the effort to bring in Pacific Rim experts while the
87
administration expresses disappointment with the progress on this initiative several
years on. Based on interview results, item #2 does not appear to have taken place to
any great degree. Most study participants, at all position levels, specifically cited a
lack of institutional coordination of internationalization activities, with the
international offices being the one notable exception.
Study abroad numbers for undergraduates have indeed increased at USC since
1998. In the 2002-2003 academic year, 365 undergraduates spent a semester
overseas, representing an average annual increase from 1998 to 2003 of just over 30
students (USC Division of Student Affairs, internal data reports).
Items # 4 and #7 were both mentioned in the 1994 plan, and continue to be
sources of frustration to many on campus. A widely viewed weakness of USC’s
internationalization concerns the perceived lack of significant interaction between
domestic students and the sizeable international student population, despite years of
discussion of this problem. Likewise, although utilization of international alumni
has been part of the internationalization initiative for over a decade, many report
dissatisfaction with progress in this area.
The 1998 strategic plan ends with a listing of several attainments for each of the
four strategic initiatives presented in the 1994 plan. The fifteen accomplishments
that relate to the internationalization initiative are listed here as an indication of the
university’s perceived successes (as viewed in 1998):
International Research and Teaching Involvement in the Pacific Rim and
Latin America
Launched in 1997 the Marshall School’s Pacific Rim Education
(PRIME) Program. In Spring 1998, all 250 full-time MBA students
88
participated in field visits at 60 different companies in Tokyo, Osaka,
Shanghai, Nanjing, Jakarta, Mexico City, and Monterrey.
Launched numerous international curricular initiatives including the
School of Policy, Planning and Development’s 12-month
International Public Policy and Management Program for Asian
healthcare officials.
Initiated a new architecture studio class in Malaysia in the summer of
1998 for undergraduates in architecture and urban planning.
Developed multiple international research connections between the
School of Medicine and institutions in Asia, with particular emphasis
on its work with the Peking Union Medical College in Beijing.
Connections with Universities, Communities, Alumni and Corporations
Abroad
Elected four prominent Asian leaders to USC’s Board of Trustees.
Arranged a thirty-person delegation of USC’s Trustees and senior
leadership to Tokyo, Jakarta, and Hong Kong – to familiarize them
with Asian societies and the important roles played by USC alumni.
Established (in collaboration with UCLA, UC Berkeley, and Caltech)
the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) which brings
together the chief executive officers of 33 of the leading Pacific Rim
research universities. APRU is modeled on the Association of
American Universities (AAU), and President Sample of USC serves
as APRU’s founding chairman. APRU has been recognized by the
presidents and prime ministers of the APEC economies as an
important new institution that can facilitate economic development
and the transfer of science and technology around the Pacific Rim.
Opened representative offices in Jakarta, Taipei, and Hong Kong, and
have made plans for additional office in other Asian countries.
Internal Structures and Policies that Support Educational and Research
Linkages Abroad
Established Provost’s Distinguished Visitors Program that annually
brings five to eight Asia and Latin America experts to USC to meet
with students and faculty for up to 10 days each. Eighteen such
visitors have come to USC since January 1996.
Establish Provost’s Asia/Latin America Experts Program that
subsidizes the hiring of senior faculty with Asian or Latin American
expertise. Under this program, the Marshall School recently has hired
an expert on Japan’s financial system, and four additional searches are
underway.
Created the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP) in
collaboration with the School of International Relations and the
Council on Foreign Relations. This council supports a visiting
89
speaker program and a visiting scholar program, and organizes
research seminars and study groups.
Won $2.1 million in grants since 1994 for USC’s Center for
International Business Education and Research (CIBEAR) from the
U.S. Department of Education to support 50 teaching and research
projects led by over 65 USC faculty.
Won over $2.08 million in grants since 1994 for USC’s East Asian
Studies Center (jointly with UCLA) from the U.S. Department of
Education.
Created the Community Newspaper Council, which connects the
Annenberg School for Communication to various ethnic newspapers
in Southern California, thereby strengthening USC’s relationships
with communities that have strong ties to Asia and Latin America.
(Four-Year Report on the 1994 Strategic Plan, 1998)
This list serves as a highlight reel of the attainments during the mid-1990s that
fit into the internationalization initiative. At the time of the release of the 1998 plan,
many of these programs and endeavors had only been in existence for a year or two.
Now seven years later, several of these attainments were noted by interview
participants in this study, although there were concerns about the on-campus effects
of some of the most touted projects, such as the founding of APRU, the
establishment of international offices, and special incentives for hiring Pacific Rim
and Latin America specialists. At the same time, conflicting views exist today
regarding the level of success of such goals as increasing ties with international
alumni and promoting curricular development with an international focus.
While this list of accomplishments is certainly impressive, especially when one
realizes that they took place within a four-year period, the absence of some other
attainments is noticeable. With one or two exceptions, very few items on this list
describe programs and reforms that directly influenced the internationalization of the
undergraduate student experience. Many of the activities which involve student
90
mobility (i.e., studying abroad) are directed toward graduate and professional level
students. Very little mention is made of curricular developments, and foreign
language instruction is not discussed at all. The choice of programs the university
considered its top accomplishments in the 1998 strategic plan provide a strong
indication of the approach to internationalization taken by USC. This approach deals
most directly with the establishment of networks and connections across borders that
are viewed as having the potential to open doors for future collaborations of all
types. A picture emerges of an organized attempt to establish a web of contacts,
mostly in Asia, that will provide a loosely organized infrastructure in support of
innovations to be promulgated by various individuals and units within the university.
This approach, especially as outlined in a plan which serves as a four-year progress
report on the 1994 plan that introduced the key strategic initiatives, should not come
as a surprise. Given the university’s decentralized organizational structure, the
central administration attempts to put into place mechanisms that can enable certain
types of programs to flourish, but it is up to each unit to interpret what this means
within its own academic fields and based upon their own capabilities and resources.
2004 Strategic Plan: USC’s Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence:
Building Strategic Capabilities for the University of the 21
st
Century
If the 1994 strategic plan can be characterized as setting a course for excellence,
and the 1998 plan as reporting mid-term on progress and honing of strategic focus,
then the 2004 USC strategic plan is certainly a bold statement of a university which
91
sees itself as poised to jump into the top tier of universities in the U.S. and
worldwide. Starting with the ambitious title, the 2004 plan outlines USC’s previous
progress in academic excellence, status and reputation. While this plan does include
some specific initiatives to be carried out in the near term, it reads much more as a
broad visionary statement about the potential for the institution to take another large
step along the path to elite status. Clearly the successes of the past decade in terms
of student quality, research, national rankings, and fundraising, among others, have
provided a boost to the optimism of the institution. Like others in American higher
education in the early 1990s, USC was mired in challenges related to the economy,
increased competition, and waning federal research support with the end of the Cold
War. Around the same period of time, the perceived instability of the university’s
immediate urban environment was seen as a liability. Much of that perception has
changed in the past decade. Flush with the success of a massive capital fundraising
campaign, recognition as Time Magazine’s College of the Year in 2000 (primarily
due to USC’s connections with its neighboring community), and the rapid rise in
admission standards and competition for student spaces, the strategic plan enacted in
2004 states one central goal and three core approaches as follows:
USC intends to become one of the most influential and productive research
universities in the world. Three core approaches will underlie our efforts:
A. We will conduct a range of research and scholarship that advances
knowledge and at the same time addresses issues critical to our
community, the nation, and the world.
B. We will create a significant global presence that will increase
international visibility, reach, and impact of our research, scholarship, art,
education, and service.
92
C. We will focus our educational programs on meeting the needs of qualified
students worldwide, from undergraduates through continuing professional
development. This commitment will guide our choices regarding
pedagogy, instructional technology, curriculum, admissions, and support
services.
(USC’s Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence, 2004, p. 2)
Within this list one can see references in each approach that in some ways relate
to the internationalization initiative from the 1994 plan. Item A includes mention of
addressing critical issues beyond the local context in a global setting. Item B
addresses the issue of global image and visibility, and expresses a desire for the
university to be influential in many realms and in many locations. Item C speaks
directly to newly emerging markets for USC’s educational programs, and foresees
consideration of such initiatives as offshore programs and distance education
programs.
This document was enacted only three months prior to the start of data collection
for this study. Therefore, while it is too early to reflect on the influence of this plan,
it does send several messages about the kind of innovations and activities that will be
valued in the coming years. An important change from previous plans is the
terminology used to describe USC’s international focus. This plan introduces the
phrase “expanded global presence” which seems to better encapsulate the approach
taken by the university even starting from the introduction of the 1994 plan. As will
be noted in the presentation of interview data, USC now sees an opportunity to look
beyond national rankings and reputation, and compare itself to the best and most
respected higher education institutions in the world. As described in the 2004 plan:
93
The convergence of globalism, technology, and education will require the
leading educational institutions to become truly international in presence,
focus and scope in order to create global visibility and brand equity. Great
universities have international visibility and reach, and if USC is to cement
her (sic) status as a great university she (sic) must expand her (sic) global
presence.
(USC’s Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence, 2004, p. 3)
The core rationale for internationalization, or expanded global presence, has not
really changed from the 1994 document to the 2004 strategic plan. This document
still points to increased globalization and to growing competition from other
educational providers worldwide. What has changed is the sense that USC is now on
the verge of its next leap forward and the institution sees global presence as the
requisite feature that will help it attain this goal. In regard to continued recruitment
of international students, this document states:
…a global presence will attract the most talented students in the world to
USC. The demand for education is increasing worldwide, and the best
students will view higher education as an international market, heightening
competition and creating a truly global student body. We seek to become the
university of choice for future leaders in all parts of the world.
(USC’s Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence, 2004, p. 3)
This plan focused more directly on issues of marketization and competition than
did the previous documents, introducing such terms as branding, international
markets, and revenue sources into the discussion of internationalization. Another
slight shift in the latest plan is more discussion of global influence for USC, and a bit
less reliance on the Pacific Rim connections. However, since the idea of USC’s
place in Los Angeles and the Pacific Rim is still prominent in this document, and no
other world regions are specifically named, it remains to be seen if resources and
attention will be expanded to other locations. This issue, especially USC’s more
94
recent forays into Latin America, was of great interest to interview participants and
will be discussed in the next chapter.
Like the strategic plans of 1994 and 1998, the latest document mentions some
existing strengths and highlights already accomplished attainments related to
internationalization. Among those illuminated in this plan are the founding of
APRU, the USC international offices, continued presence of a large international
student population, the activities of the School of International Relations, and the
international nature of Los Angeles and the Southern California region. Unlike the
1998 plan which highlighted many accomplishments derived from the previous plan
and attained in the intervening years, the 2004 document lists mostly programs and
initiatives that were in place by the time of the previous 1998 plan. Whether this
indicates a lack of progress over the past six years, or just the different structure of
the 2004 document (more focused on providing a vision for the future than listing
past accomplishments) is not clear. Certainly many of the programs and structures
that were introduced between 1994 and 1998 are still in existence and have matured
and developed over the past 6 year period. For example, since the 1998 plan was
released, two additional international offices have opened. APRU has also had more
time to develop its focus and decide upon its priorities as an organization. As will be
discussed in the next chapter, some at the university would like to see the pace of
internationalization pick up or for emphasis to be placed on different types of
activities than are currently receiving the most attention by campus leaders.
95
The 2004 strategic plan offers four strategic capabilities to be developed. Each
represents an attempt to create a more fluid and adaptable institution that can make
the necessary changes to stay out in front of, or at least keep up with, changing
external influences on higher education. The four capabilities are presented in Table
4.
While each of the strategic capabilities holds implications for international
activities, the third and fourth items open the door to support of some specific
international endeavors. In regard to the third item, building networks and
partnerships, the plan goes on to state:
…since important social problems do not stop at the borders of our nation,
we will need to enter into international networks, engage in international
projects, and assist our faculty in gaining access to foreign researchers,
governments, and businesses.
(USC’s Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence, 2004, p. 7)
While the idea of international partnerships is by no means a new one, this
strategic plan considers a broader array of potential partners than previous
documents. Of particular interest are mentions of partnerships with corporations and
with foreign policymakers. The attention paid to collaboration with foreign or multi-
national corporations reflects the realization that federal funding for research is in
danger of being overshadowed by corporate knowledge production. The focus on
policymakers, both domestic and foreign, demonstrates that USC is intent on
wielding more influence on important decisions made on societal issues, one of the
perceived roles of elite research institutions. In preparation for connections with
both corporations and policymakers, some of USC’s previous international
96
endeavors such as the founding of APRU, the establishment of international offices,
and USC’s Asia conferences, should serve the institution well in this regard.
Table 4. USC Strategic Plan, 2004 – Strategic Capabilities
Strategic Capability Description
1. Span disciplinary
and school boundaries
to focus on problems
of societal significance
Since societal problems rarely fall within the domain of a single
discipline or school, collaboration that brings together different
perspectives and skills may be the best means of addressing such
problems. Existing disciplinary and school boundaries, however,
often impede effective collaboration. We must create mechanisms
that remove structural disincentives to such collective efforts on
problems of major significance.
2. Link fundamental to
applied research
In developing USC as the university with the greatest societal
impact and global presence, we will have to overcome
longstanding divisions between fundamental versus
practical/applied research and scholarship and build closer
relationships between the core arts and science disciplines of the
College and our professional schools.
3. Build networks and
partnerships
Because USC will not encompass all the skills and knowledge
required to address major societal needs and questions, many of
which having global implications, we will have to develop new
partnerships and joint-ventures with various kinds of entities.
These include other universities; non-profits such as libraries,
museums, think tanks, and non-governmental organizations;
businesses and corporations; and domestic and multi-national
policymakers.
4. Increase
responsiveness to
learners
To become learner-centered, USC must develop three related
capabilities: (1) create educational structures and methods that
better fulfill student needs, (2) harness technology for more
responsiveness and flexibility in education, and (3) offer learning
opportunities beyond graduation and across the world.
Note. USC’s Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence: Building Strategic Capabilities for the
University of the 21
st
Century. University of Southern California, 2004, p. 2.
97
The fourth item, increasing responsiveness to learners, also supports
internationalization, primarily by paving the way for continued development of
offshore educational programs and distance education. As noted in the plan:
This is also an area which will enhance USC’s global reach by providing
professional education at sites around the world. There are many areas of the
world that need excellent professional programs that can serve the needs of
students worldwide and at the same time expand global visibility and provide
new sources of revenue.
(USC’s Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence, 2004, p. 9)
The 2004 strategic plan includes some specific initiatives set to take place in the
short-term to increase responsiveness to learners, including a plan for requiring each
school to create at least one distance learning course, and a requirement for each
dean to develop a plan for continuing professional education or lifelong learning. It
remains to be seen how many of these plans and programs will be international in
nature.
An additional document reviewed in this study due to its importance to the 2004
USC strategic plan is the Strategic Planning Sub-Committee on Globalization –
Final Report. This document was prepared by a 10-member committee charged with
making specific recommendations to the overall strategic planning committee on
issues related to internationalization and globalization. This report was one of a
number of such documents prepared by several sub-committees involved in the lead-
up work for the 2004 strategic plan.
Some of the subcommittee’s recommendations and language can be found in the
final 1994 strategic plan. For example, this reports states, “The top academic centers
of the future will not only respond to new forces in the world, but place a high value
98
on solutions to new world problems.” At the same time, the subcommittee
cautioned, “’Globalization’ is more than a catch-phrase or a pretty way of saying
‘world markets.’ A truly global organization integrates a cross-national dimension
into the very nature of its structure and behavior.” As will be seen in the next
chapter, opinions vary as to how far along USC has come in realizing this objective.
Other aspects of the globalization sub-committee’s report, including several
specific curricular and programmatic recommendations, are not as prominent—or are
absent altogether—in the final 1994 strategic plan. Among these suggestions are
establishment of a Center for Global Studies, introduction of a global element into all
academic programs and student research, and addition of an undergraduate
concentration in Global Studies. Beyond these curricular initiatives, the sub-
committee report offered suggestions for ways USC can take its academic programs
beyond national boundaries to reach a truly global audience, including emphasis on
new educational technologies, establishment of theme-based “hub centers” located
around the world, and new faculty reward structures to encourage involvement in
transnational or global educational programs. Perhaps the most interesting of this
committee’s recommendations was the urging for USC to consider “…expansion of
‘globalization’ programs beyond current (often market-driven) programs.”
Other Documents: 1990 – Present
A number of other documents shed some light onto USC’s progress toward
internationalization in the past fifteen years. Some were written to provide updates
99
on the global initiatives already underway, while others suggest different courses of
direction. Together they provide a picture of some of the reactions to USC’s
emphasis on internationalization over the past two decades.
A 1990 report produced by the Office of Overseas Studies, entitled The
University of Southern California: A Review of International Programs, attempted to
inventory everything international the university was formally doing at the time.
This document lists study abroad programs, faculty /departmental exchanges,
academic centers, research projects, and active university committees with an
international focus. The report also noted some earlier initiatives that had been shut
down prior to 1990, including various USC degree programs offered at U.S. military
bases in West Germany and South Korea. The picture painted by this 1990 report is
of a university highly involved in international activities but lacking coordination of
these efforts. Whether this is due to the decentralized nature of the university’s
governance structure or other factors will be in part discussed in the presentation of
interview data, since this issue remains a concern for many at the present time.
Two years before the enactment of the 1994 strategic plan, USC’s new president
was interviewed for an article in The Senate, a faculty newsletter published by the
Faculty Senate. The responses in this interview provide a clear idea of some of the
specific initiatives to follow in formal strategic plans over the next dozen years. The
president identified many of USC’s strengths, including the large number of
international students and alumni, and strong internationally-focused academic
programs in such areas as international relations, public administration, business,
100
journalism and others. At the same time, he pointed out several shortcomings,
including a need to attract more international visiting scholars, involvement in more
joint research partnerships with foreign counterparts, and the desire to more closely
link USC’s international programs with the general curriculum. He also noted that
“…I still sense some ambivalence toward true internationalization in our academic
community.” As noted previously, the contents of USC’s three strategic plans
enacted since this 1992 interview took place attempt in part to remedy this situation
and instill an international perspective into all of the university’s endeavors.
Shortly after the release of the 1994 strategic plan, the faculty senate distributed
a faculty white paper titled Internationalization at USC, offering a critique of
progress to date and suggestions for future decisions and programs. The paper starts
with a concern that until the early 1990s, USC’s rhetoric of internationalization had
far outpaced the reality of policy and practice. Commenting on the 1994 strategic
plan, this paper optimistically states, “The logic, coherence, and persuasiveness of
the Plan make one hope that the facile rhetoric of the past is indeed past, and that the
future shall be marked by concrete actions.” At the same time, this report notes that
a number of admirable international programs of various types existed at the
university, but that this had not translated into a cohesive and positive international
image for the university:
USC’s image lags behind reality. This is partly because, in our laissez
faire entrepreneurial climate, the administration does not necessarily
know about faculty strengths, assets, or initiatives. (Internationalization
at USC, Faculty White Paper, A. Moore, 1994)
101
Among the specific suggestions of this document are encouragement for
graduate student study abroad, faculty research abroad, more international
fundraising (although this should be respectful of various traditions of private
philanthropy in other countries), and development of effective interdisciplinary
academic centers to bring together faculty around international themes. Another
recommendation included improving access to study abroad for undergraduates,
especially by strengthening ties between study abroad and foreign language
instruction programs. This paper also noted that more must be done to enhance the
internationalization of the student experience on campus for all students, and
suggested the development of an international house, something that was later
implemented in part through an international residential college. As with most of the
endeavors falling under the area of internationalization, this initiative has met with
mixed reviews from administrators, faculty and staff.
Two reports from more recent dates preceded the enactment of USC’s 2004
strategic plan. The Internationalization Initiative, written by the provost, and USC’s
Internationalization Investments & Accomplishments: 1994-2002, written by the vice
provost for international affairs, were both distributed in 2003, in advance of a
campus-wide mini-conference on internationalization. The former lays out a set of
ongoing initiatives that match closely with the language found in the subsequent
1994 plan. Among the suggestions of specific strategic goals are the following:
1. Increase the value of a USC education for both American and
international students by better preparing them to succeed in a more
globalized environment
102
2. Create global networks that will better enable all of our graduates to
succeed in this globalized environment
3. Become the “US university of choice” for academically qualified children
and employees of Pacific Rim academic, business, and government
leaders.
4. Increase research on the many aspects of the increasingly globalized
environment
5. Use the increased international visibility to attract the highest quality
faculty from around the world to USC
6. Provide first-hand access to distinctive, focused research collections both
traditional and digital in order to further research in and understanding of
Pacific Rim countries and their peoples
7. Use our global strength to further increase the prestige of USC both
domestically and internationally
8. Investigate 21
st
century models for global academic collaboration
(The Internationalization Initiative, L. Armstrong, Jr., 2003)
This list is noticeably consistent with the evolution in the discourse on
internationalization toward issues of institutional prestige and competition
worldwide. Goal No. 3 especially indicates a desire to focus marketing efforts
specifically on the most influential members of Pacific Rim societies in order to
eventually enroll students who are most likely to emerge as the next generation of
leaders in the region.
The vice provost’s report was intended as a draft report to stimulate discussion
at the afore-mentioned conference, and was not meant to be a final status report of
any kind on USC’s internationalization agenda. The attainments outlined in this
document mirror those mentioned in the previous strategic plan (1998) and reiterated
in the 2004 version. They also closely align with some of the reported successes
noted by administrators, faculty and staff to be presented in the Chapter Five.
Among these are the appointment of four Asian leaders to USC’s Board of Trustees,
creation of the vice provost position in 1994, establishment of APRU, opening of the
103
international offices, opening of the Parkside International Residential College (a
residence hall opened in 2002 that brings together international and U.S. students
and that is intended to act as a center for internationally-themed events and activities
on campus), and continued support and nurturing of several Title VI programs,
including the Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBEAR)
and the East Asian Studies Center (EASC).
104
Chapter Five
Aspiring To Global Excellence:
A University’s Experience with Internationalization
This chapter examines the perceptions of administrators, faculty and staff
regarding USC’s pursuit of its internationalization strategic initiative. The
information is presented in thematic categories that emerged from the analysis of
interview data from the 34 study participants, starting with a discussion of the
respondents’ definitions of internationalization, and their view on USC’s rationale
for making this initiative a top priority. Subsequent sections address changes and
attainments reported during the 15-year period of this study, noted shortfalls and
criticisms of the state of internationalization at USC, and concerns about how the
university’s decentralized organizational structure influences the course of
internationalization. Participants’ thoughts on the role of marketization and
competition in the university’s internationalization process are discussed next,
followed by an examination of the stated Pacific Rim geographic focus and
perceptions of USC’s future intentions related to expanding its global presence.
Definitions of Internationalization
Before beginning to assess the interview subjects’ perceptions about USC’s level
of success in carrying out its internationalization agenda, it was important to first
find out how they defined this often nebulous concept. As the data below will show,
105
various members of the university community had widely varying views on what
types of initiatives should be part of an internationalization effort. Each participant
was asked for his or her own personal definition of internationalization near the
beginning of each interview. Their responses included two types of
internationalization elements: specific programmatic efforts (enrollment of
international students, study abroad programs, etc.) and more general objectives
(greater awareness of other cultures, enhanced global presence for the university).
Responses are presented in Table 5.
One interesting note from the responses outlined in Table 5 is that no central
administrator or academic unit administrator mentioned foreign language instruction
as part of their definition of internationalization, while a handful of staff and faculty
did include this in their definition. Also of note is the fact that only three out of
thirty-four total participants mentioned international development or service projects
(i.e., economic development projects and other initiatives aimed at assisting
developing countries to meet societal needs) as a key element of internationalization.
In cases when development projects were mentioned the respondents noted their
perception that this type of activity was on the decline, both at USC and other
universities. Finally, it was apparent that the central administrators’ responses most
closely reflected the contents of USC’s most recent strategic plan, since several
mentioned the general concept of global presence as a key element of
internationalization. No participants in other groups included this language in their
106
replies, suggesting that the discourse included in the 2004 plan had not yet made its
way into the popular discussion of internationalization on campus at all levels.
Table 5. Elements Included in Definition of Internationalization,
by Participant Sub-group
Central Admin.
N=6
Academic
Unit Admin.
N=7
Program
Staff
N=11
Faculty
N=10 TOTAL
International Students 3 6 7 3 19
International Research 3 5 4 4 16
Study Abroad 2 4 6 2 14
Student Learning/Global
Awareness
2 3 4 1 10
Globalized Curriculum 1 3 2 4 10
International Faculty 1 2 3 3 9
Partnerships with Foreign
Institutions (Academic and
Industry)
2 1 1 4
Competition/Marketing 1 2 1 4
Foreign Language
Programs
3 1 4
Global Presence 3 3
Service and Outreach –
Development Assistance
Abroad
1 1 1 3
Faculty Overseas Travel 2 1 3
Overarching Campus
Culture
1 1 2
International Alumni
Outreach
1 1 2
Students Pursuing Global
Careers
1 1 2
Hosting International
Visitors
1 1 2
Mission Statements and
Symbolic Aspects
1 1 2
International Trustees 1 1 2
International Fundraising 1 1
Membership in
International
Organizations
1 1
Offshore Education
Programs
1 1
107
Enrollment of international students has long been seen as a prominent element
of internationalization, both at USC and other institutions. While many participants
in this study did mention international students as a key factor, some explained that
the university needs to look beyond this traditional strength and seek deeper
meanings in its pursuit of a more global focus. A common refrain about the benefits
of having international students in large numbers is represented by this comment:
Central administrator: …and that’s the kind of perspective that these
international students bring to everything that they do. It helps our faculty, it
helps their classmates, and so, that’s a real core key asset of the university.
Others felt that enrolling a large number of international students is not enough,
and that the key is to focus on how international students interact with other
members of the university community. One staff member who works with
international students summarized this thought:
Program staff member: The first thing I would say is interaction…first, the
presence of international students on campus, of course, and then, second,
systems, programs, functions, all ways you can think of to make sure that
international students interact with domestic students, and interact with each
other, in other words, beyond national boundaries, so that you have
everybody learning from everybody else, and benefiting from, you know,
international students benefiting from getting to know U.S. students, etc.
Central administrators were the most likely participants to admit that the
university has for too long assumed that its large international student enrollment has
automatically created an international environment on campus. They certainly
recognized the promise of exchange and understanding that can be fostered by
bringing students from around the world together, but they were quick to point out
108
that just having international students is not enough. Two examples of their
responses which follow indicate an attempt to expand the definition to include a
broader array of activities. One, when asked to define internationalization, stated:
Central administrator: It does not mean recruiting international students.
That’s one element, but it’s certainly not a dominant element. So,
internationalization of higher education, to me, means to increase teaching,
research and outreach activities between our students, faculty, and alumni
with other societies.
Another administrator, invoking a globalization-oriented model, noted:
Central administrator: If you talked to people five, ten years ago, even, I’d
think they thought of internationalization as, well, send our students abroad to
study, or we have international students here. And, so, that people get some
taste of what an international student is, and something like that. And, I think
we’ve come to evolve and recognize the industry of education is now a global
industry, and it attracts students on a global basis. We have faculty who do
research with colleagues on a global basis, and so, like major corporations
that operate, they’re not bound by geography, and we’re no longer bound by
geography. And, I think we thought of ourselves as bound by geography, so
people came to us, or occasionally, we send students someplace else, but
we’re not bound by…technology is not bound by that kind of place, anymore.
So, it has changed the nature of what we’re doing internationally.
Along with the value placed by many on fostering international research, most
respondents believed that the one of the best ways to foster this type of activity was
to recruit talented international faculty to the university. While the first preference
was generally for getting the best faculty from overseas, some mentioned that
recruiting star US-based faculty with strong international research interests would be
as effective. As one professor noted:
Faculty member, education: …take our own school, as a case in point.
Whether we think of ourselves as internationalizing or not internationalizing
depends totally on the people that we’ve got that are either internationally-
oriented or not. I mean, it’s not like we can sort of say, “Well, all of a
sudden, we’re going to get international,” and we’ve got a bunch of guys or
109
gals that don’t know anything about it. I’m not sure…I don’t know how you
speed it up.
A distinction was made by many participants between internationally-focused
research, that is, research of an international or comparative nature, versus actual
internationally collaborative research with partners and institutions abroad. One
academic unit administrator described several kinds of research that could be
considered international:
Academic unit administrator, business: … internationalization can be various
forms in the research department. One is, I’m doing research with
international participants. I can have students who are from abroad doing
research with me, or post-docs who will do research with me, or visiting
faculty members, or just collaborating with faculty from other schools, doing
the research projects. I can also be doing research for international agencies
or corporations, as such, so the target…the school, the research, itself, could
be for international companies. And, even further, and not just the degree of
research, it could also be that the scope of my research is international by
nature.
Partnerships and affiliations with institutions abroad, including but not limited to
research collaborations, were mentioned by many as another key element of
internationalization. This relates also to the often-cited need for expanded global
presence, a term that found a prominent place in the most recent Strategic Plan. As
one central administrator explained, internationalization at USC has come to mean
establishing global presence, having research in other parts of the world, having
international students, and having an intense intensity of interaction with institutions
and individuals in other parts of the world.
110
Another administrator made similar comments, commenting on the purposeful
shift in language in the 2004 Strategic Plan, replacing the term “internationalization”
with “expanded global presence.”
Central administrator: I think, in our most recent strategic plan, we now call
it “global presence,” instead of “globalization,” because that seems to be a
little less imperialistic. I think the idea of a global presence for a university is
that our faculty are engaged broadly around the world in helping societies to
address problems around the world, whether they’re in areas of social work,
or education, or business…
The idea of expanded global presence was often spoken of in terms of
international networking and connections. Many participants discussed this idea,
saying that USC’s primary central objective should be to help people make
connections internationally, and that some of the other more specific activities would
naturally follow, such as collaborative research and global career opportunities for
the university’s graduates. As summarized by one academic unit administrator:
Academic unit administrator, communication: I think USC is truly an
international university, in the sense that our students, as I say, come from
everywhere; our alumni go everywhere, so it also means staying connected
with members of the USC community who are in various places.
As will be noted in a subsequent section, this objective of enabling international
connections for members of the university community is one that most participants
in this study saw as one of the institution’s successes in the overall
internationalization strategy.
Study abroad programs were often mentioned as an important part of
internationalization, but in many cases study participants felt this was an area not
given enough attention by the university. While a few respondents suggested a need
111
to require students in certain programs to spend part of their education abroad, or to
set a specific goal for a percentage of students to send abroad, one staff member
responsible for planning and implementing study abroad programs stated:
Program staff member: …there are some Japanese universities who have a
quota almost. They want to send a certain percentage of their students
overseas to study abroad. And, I think they’re just focused on the number,
the experience has become secondary in those cases, so it’s just…it becomes
sort of an empty goal, when you’re just shooting for a number, and you’re not
looking at the value of the experience.
In general, however, the prevailing opinion of participants was that not enough
USC students spend time abroad as part of their academic experience. This will be
addressed in more detail in a subsequent section.
A few participants focused their responses to the question of defining
internationalization on the goals related to student learning related to global
awareness:
Academic unit administrator, engineering: …commitment to
internationalization kind of sends a message to the community that knowing
about other people, other cultures, other parts of the world is important, and I
think that’s something that shouldn’t get lost in all the programs that we do. I
mean, what we’re really saying is that we value the experiences of interacting
with folks in other parts of the world.
Central administrator: More people on the campus will understand the
world, and again, particularly, the societies of Asia and Latin America, and
how U.S. policy affects them, and how U.S. economy affects them. And, if
you have more and more students who are knowledgeable about these things,
and more and more faculty who are, and you have more connections to the
stakeholder communities, this university will clearly be a more
internationalized university.
Taking this issue of student learning a step further, only a small number of
administrators, staff and faculty moved away from specific programmatic elements
112
of internationalization in their definitions to describe a more all-encompassing
culture change at the institutional level. One administrator, describing a situation
that could be defined as successful internationalization, described the following
scenario:
Central administrator: …we’ve got pockets all over the university making
that [internationalization] happen. And, I think that if you went ahead to look
back when have kind of achieved that, it’s when internationalization or
globalization isn’t really referred to as that; it’s part of everything that you
do. It’s not this center for student exchanges, or it’s not just this or it’s just
that, it’s something that every class has a component of, because
internationalization is going to be important to virtually everything we do.
This question of assessment was on the minds of several respondents, but there
was a lack of clarity on how to best go about assessing how successful the university
has been in meeting its stated internationalization initiative, especially if defined in
terms of creating an overarching culture of internationalization within the entire
university community. Most pointed toward the more easily quantifiable aspects of
internationalization, including student mobility figures, established partnerships
abroad, and others.
Central administrator: The outcomes we want, that’s a more difficult
question, and one I think we’re still grappling with, and that is, how do you
know when we have a global presence? How can I convince you or convince
a trustee, or convince somebody else that we achieve that? In some ways,
you can look at kinds of joint programs you have and your interactions with
government leaders, and non-government leaders, and outside the U.S., you
can look at things like the Marshall MBA program or the PRIME program
that sends students overseas, which shifts to international offices. And, I
think you can point to a lot of markers and measures, but I think it’s going to
be hard to know that.
As seen in the Table 5, participants in this study included many different
elements in their definitions of internationalization, and have not reached a
113
consensus on specific outcomes to try to achieve. However, several elements were
included much more often than others: international students, international research,
study abroad, student learning/global awareness, globalized curriculum, and
international faculty.
Even though the three strategic plans from 1994-2004 do identify some specific
goals toward internationalization, not everyone agrees that these are the appropriate
objectives for the university at this time. Even among the leadership at the highest
levels, there is more of a general desire to be more well-connected around the world,
and to be perceived as a more prestigious institution because of these international
connections, than an expressed desire to see specific programmatic outcomes
emerge. From the administration’s standpoint, this flexibility and openness to
evolving ideas and proposals is part of the strategy to help the university grow into
its place as a top-tier global university, whatever that may end up looking like. From
the standpoint of some other members of the campus community, a lack of focus
exists which can, at times, hold USC back from making larger strides in terms of
specific internationalization initiatives.
Rationales for Internationalization
Participants in this study were questioned about their perception of the rationales
behind USC’s focus on internationalization in its recent strategic planning
documents. Their responses provide a glimpse into the optimism many feel about
the potential for international education initiatives to strengthen the university’s
114
position among competitors and its effectiveness in contributing to solutions of
major global problems. At the same time, in some cases participants’ views on the
reasons behind this strategic focus hinted at their skepticism about the real
educational benefit of the university’s international endeavors.
The most commonly cited rationales for internationalization related to issues of
competition, institutional reputation, and branding of the USC name globally.
Interestingly, however, comparatively few central administrators mentioned these
reasons. Among their comments supporting these rationales was the following:
Central administrator: The provost believes, and the president believes, and
it’s stated in the plan, that that competition will grow again, in terms of the
global scope, and the whole reason for the global presence, part of this…well,
I wouldn’t say the whole reason, but the principal reason for the global
presence being one of the three main pillars of the new strategic plan, is the
fundamental belief that the leadership that USC has, that in the very near
future, a small cadre of global elite universities will emerge, and that we have
the opportunity to be one of those universities, and this plan is intended to
help us get there.
Some academic unit administrators also agreed with this rationale, focusing on
their schools’ attempts to increase prestige and global influence:
Academic unit administrator, business: …step by step, we try and build this
reputation, that we are a global school, teachers, the students, we are
everywhere, so you had to be global, you had to be everywhere, in some
sense. So, that’s part and parcel of the way we were thinking about the
Marshall School [of Business].
Academic unit administrator, social work: So, it’s very important to have
these connections from countries that send us students. It’s very important
for us to have these exchange agreements, contacts with faculty, and deans
and others, so that we can ensure that our Ph.D. students are hired at
reputable institutions when they return to their own countries.
115
Program staff and faculty more often cited competition and institutional
reputation when offering their perception of the university’s rationale for pursuing
the internationalization strategy. Several of these comments indicated a desire for
the university to keep up with other institutions that were also internationalizing, or
to help elevate USC to the upper tier of research institutions. Illustrative of this
sentiment among staff members are the following statements:
Program staff member, study abroad programs: …to get the best research,
you know this is a research university, and research is international. I mean
if you want to get the best scholars, the best researchers you have to be
looking outside of the US. You have to attract people from around the world,
in order to have a world-class research institution.
Program staff member, study abroad programs: Even if there are people
who don’t support it, it’s one of these things that’s like being a Republican;
you always have to say you’re against taxes. But, if you’re going to be a
good institution, you always have to say that you want to foster an
international perspective. That’s just part of being an educated person now.
Faculty, too, often agreed that the current rise in overall national rankings by
USC is inextricably tied to its focus on internationalization over the past 10-15 years.
As one professor stated:
Faculty member, political science: …any university that is considered a top
ranked university would be in, at least, the top 25, which we are still not, all
right? Any university in the top 25. Part of that ranking is branding, and
name recognition, and a large part of that name recognition is a presence in
international settings.
Others compared the university to other institutions that USC is attempting to
join the top ranks of US higher education:
Faculty member, education: This university is just generally interested in
rapidly increasing its power and its influence, and connecting with what it
sees as profitable markets. Its very entrepreneurial, it’s very much market
analysis I think. They see that they can attract students of high quality, of
116
wealth and power, and prestige from what is essentially a culturally diverse
recruitment pool. All of the leading universities in this country have strong
international programs. This campus is seriously attempting to join those
ranks.
Expressing a similar sentiment, a professor of public administration stated that
any prominent research university must be involved internationally. Like several
other respondents, this professor mentioned the international nature of some other
highly prestigious institutions, in this case Harvard and MIT, and noted that USC is
rightfully pursuing internationalization as a means to compete with those institutions.
These comments linking internationalization to increasing prestige are in line
with the formal statements made in USC’s most recent strategic plan, as noted in
Chapter Four. While not everyone who participated in this study agrees that this
should be the most prominent reason for pursuing an internationalization strategy,
those with an international element to their work (nearly all participants) were
pleased that USC has placed this issue at the core of its planning process.
Another rationale cited often by participants was the university’s compulsion to
respond to worldwide forces of globalization. They cited a need to think more
globally due to the world becoming more interconnected in commerce,
communication and culture. All categories of respondents placed a strong emphasis
on the globalization rationale. In general, most participants portrayed a sense of
inevitability for the university to pursue international/global initiatives, and they
agreed this was the appropriate course to follow. As one senior administrator noted:
Central administrator: As the world has become increasingly global, it
becomes not even voluntary, but essential for us to be international, in order
to do an effective job. …if you start with research, most of the interesting
117
problems are problems that cannot be addressed in one country, alone. You
know, if you look at environmental issues, if you look at medical issues, if
you look at political issues, economic issues, the interaction of the facts,
internationally, is, you know, it’s just such a vitally important part of any
problem. … in order for us to prepare our students to be effective leaders
tomorrow, they have to be prepared to work with, communicate with, do
business with, individuals from other parts of the world.
Others echoed similar sentiments in their responses, signaling a general
consensus that higher education institutions shouldn’t shy away from participation in
a more globalized world. Without necessarily agreeing on specific strategies to be
employed, most participants offered such comments as the following:
Program staff member, student affairs: I think it’s pretty clear that the whole
world is starting to interact in every way, economically, etc., so it’s just
staying on the edge of what’s happening, to begin with, I think.
Program staff member, student recruitment: So, in this day and age, the
world is very small, in the sense that it’s very easy to communicate with
people on the other side of the world in no time, different cultures, different
factors impact the U.S. culture. So, I think it’s just the importance of that as
being a university citizen of the world. It’s almost like it shouldn’t be
something extra, but just something that’s naturally apart of any forward-
thinking, outward looking university.
Faculty member, economics: I think, because the world is increasingly
globalized, so, I think you can’t deny it. You really have to bring it forward.
I mean this is happening in businesses, it’s happening everywhere. So, the
university can’t go on without also having it, so I think it’s something that
can’t be resisted.
One professor, commenting on the university’s response to globalization,
reflected on her perception that USC is uniquely situated to take advantage of its
international endeavors, due to the fact that attention has been given to this strategic
initiative for quite some time:
Faculty member, art history: As the world became more conscious of
globalization, anyway, you couldn’t really avoid it. How could you not get
118
on that bandwagon? But, I think what we realized is that we’re many steps
ahead, even as we begin this, because we’ve been building without knowing
how critical it would be to us, for a long time, and then, in the 90’s, and then,
certainly now, my God, we are really well positioned.
Beyond just a reactionary response to globalization forces over which the
institution holds no control, rationales presented by some participants focused on
revenue and the financial impact of new international programs. While not quite as
commonly cited, financial rationales were noted by several academic unit
administrators and program staff. There was a contrast between these groups and
between these groups and the central administrators and faculty, who did not cite
financial reasons for pushing internationalization. When questioned directly about
this motive, central administrators at times admitted that there may be some side
benefits of enrolling large numbers of international students, but they countered that
many other international endeavors, including study abroad and exchange programs,
actually cost the university money. Speaking of the reasons behind
internationalization, one academic unit administrator noted:
Academic unit administrator, engineering: I think it’s survival. I think if we
didn’t, we couldn’t survive in this day and age. I mean, the world’s getting
smaller. I think we, as an institution, have a large sum of international
students. There are some tuition income issues that go along with that.
Others made this point even more strongly, as exemplified in the following
statement by a program staff member involved with study abroad programs :
Program staff member: I am a little cynical, but I really think it comes down
to a lot of money. I know for a fact that one of the motivating factors is
money. Money is a defining focus, especially when looking at certain
geographic regions. There is a conscious effort to tap the Asian market. I am
sure that there are a number of people that are involved in the creation of
programs that really believe in them, but, it’s obvious to me that the push at
119
certain times, in certain directions, had a lot to do with trying to either get
more students to come here who are willing to pay, or donations and buying
goodwill. I mean, that’s what it comes down to, in many cases.
In contrast to the perception by some that financial issues always often take
precedent, the most recent university strategic plan, from 2004, includes substantial
language about the university’s desire and intention to focus its resources on
developing solutions to major societal issues and problems. The internationalization
initiative is strongly linked with this objective, since societal problems are now
increasingly defined as global in nature. Several central administrators, and a few
faculty, proposed a rationale for USC’s international strategy based on the need to be
better able to respond effectively to problems on a global scale. No program staff or
academic unit administrators who participated in this study spoke of similar
rationales. According to one central administrator, commenting on the latest
strategic plan document:
Central administrator: This plan tries to take that to another level, especially
with the idea of developing these strategic capabilities, because the notion
there is, the world’s going to look to us, not just LA, not just the national
government, but the world’s going to look at the research universities as a
source, if not the source, of solutions to the big problems. And, the places
that can break through those boundaries that separate the disciplines, will be
the places that can provide those, and those will be the places that are highly
esteemed, and, I believe, the research universities.
Other administrators agreed with this statement, and joined in proclaiming the
immense potential for societal benefit to be realized for the expanded global reach of
USC and other universities:
Central administrator: We say one of our three tenets in the strategic plan is
the societal benefit, that would clearly engage us with people around the
120
world in trying to do things, not that would make us feel good, but trying to
do things, rather, that actually address issues on the ground.
Central administrator: ….if you truly want to have an impact, because if you
look at our local community in Southern California, it’s an international
community, and we, as a community, operate in a global environment, and
we, as an institution, have to operate in that environment. I think it’s related
to our view that in order to accomplish what we want to do, to have some
positive impact on society, we have to operate on a global basis.
One faculty member who strongly supported the university’s focus on
internationalization, and whose own research is highly international in nature, noted:
Faculty member, social work: It’s unrealistic that solutions to society’s
problems, economic problems, policy problems, are going to happen
nationally. I think that they only can happen with a commitment to accepting
internationalism.
Several other study participants focused on USC’s existing strengths and
location as key perceived factors influencing the inclusion of internationalization as a
key component of recent strategic plans. Most cited the large international student
enrollment that already existed on campus in the early 1990s as the university
formalized the international initiative. Statements such as the following indicate a
belief that the university in part acted upon an existing strength in an attempt to
differentiate itself from other institutions:
Academic unit administrator, communication: I think strategic plans, good
strategic plans are designed to take advantage of existing strengths, and to
develop the strategy and nurture and grow those strengths. And, for USC, we
already were an international university. I mean, when I first came here our
international population was heavily from the Middle East. It’s not so much
from there, anymore, but we’ve always been an international university.
Program staff member, international student services: I think that’s when
the big light came on that we have so many international students here, it’s
really a characteristic of USC, we should begin using that, and I don’t mean
121
in a bad way, but using that as a way to identify our university, market it,
because it is going to be the thing of the future.
A common theme, to be revisited in a subsequent section covering perceived
shortfalls in the area of internationalization, is that USC’s international students are
an underutilized resource. One faculty member brought up this point while agreeing
that the large number of international students helped spur the institution toward a
formal commitment to international endeavors across the university:
Faculty member, art history: I think, first of all, we began to value the
statistic that I believe we are the private university or indeed, the university in
the United States that has the most international students. We’ve had them
for a long time, but I think we have not understood what an incredible asset
they are until now…so I think that in a way, part of this is understanding that
we have, you know, the children of some extremely important influence-
makers throughout the world here. They’ve become important influence-
makers, themselves. If they get planted back in Korea, or if they go home,
we begin to have bases of operation that are extremely important. And, I
think we’ll kind of pay attention to that more.
Besides the large number of international students, USC’s location in Los
Angeles was mentioned by many participants as a key enabling factor and
motivation for pursuing the internationalization strategic initiative. Both the diverse,
international nature of the regional population in Southern California, along with Los
Angeles’ proximity to other key Pacific Rim locations were cited as factors that have
encouraged the university to expand its international activities. According to two
staff members:
Program staff member, study abroad: Los Angeles is a big Pacific Rim city,
it’s a big international city beyond the Pacific Rim and so, location-wise it’s a
perfect place.
Program staff member, international student services: …the fact that we are
on the West Coast, that we are the Rome of the Rim as its sometimes called
122
or the Capital of the Pacific Rim and that there is such an ethnic
heterogeneity in Southern California it gives us natural linkages to the rest of
the world, especially East Asia and Southeast Asia.
This focus on USC as being located in Los Angeles and on the Pacific Rim, and
therefore being well-placed to pursue strong ties within this region internationally,
emerged as a major theme of the interviews in this study. It became apparent that to
many at USC, internationalization has largely been viewed through a Pacific Rim
lens. To illustrate this belief, one academic unit administrator noted:
Academic unit administrator, business: So, there’s a history of being
international. And, what I think the ’94 document did was to almost predict
that globalization is going to be a very important aspect of humanity and
educational systems, and we pushed ahead, using that to spur and enhance,
and increase our globalization efforts, which was a way which USC could
stand out and differentiate itself competitively, and strategically. And, we
also believed at that point in time, I believed that the future was not just
globalization, but Asian and Latin American, and the 21
st
Century was going
to be more of Asia and Latin America.
As will be discussed later, the working definition of Pacific Rim within the
university has largely been directed almost exclusively toward Asia during most of
the past decade and a half. There are some indications that this may be changing,
which will be noted.
Of all the administrators, staff and faculty interviewed for this study, only two
mentioned rationales related to peace and prosperity. While this may be an
understood assumption for many who support international education activities, one
central administrator and one staff member made the following comments that
demonstrate alignment with this long-standing rationale for institutional, or national,
efforts to promote international exchange in higher education:
123
Central administrator: …if all these things continue to develop, you’ll get
bigger cadres of people, bright, smart, energetic people at the best
universities, working together. And then, they may exchange doctoral
students and do other things, and in combination, those things on the
margin…I don’t want to overstate this, but on the margin, make this thing
more peaceful and prosperous…well, make it a more prosperous Pacific Rim
community, and, hopefully, more peaceful.
Program staff member, international student services: I just really believe
that the more that people from different backgrounds, different cultures,
different nationalities get to know and become somewhat intimate with each
other, the more of a chance there is in the future of avoiding conflicts, of
finding ways to negotiate, of having sympathy for the other, of not being able
to demonize the other so that you can wage wars, you know? So, I guess,
ultimately, it’s to contribute to world peace.
When one combines the responses provided in interviews with the statements
made in USC’s strategic plans, it becomes clear that USC, like many other
institutions, is attempting to become more international for reasons of institutional
prestige, and worldwide institutional perceptions. While perhaps not a reason for
trying to internationalize, financial issues at the very least play a part in the specific
objectives adopted to reach an internationalization goal. As a response to
globalization and from an optimistic viewpoint, the argument that a more
international university will be better-placed to respond to global problems through
research and teaching is also a powerful motivator.
In summary, the 34 participants in this study agreed that it was a good idea to
include internationalization as one of the key elements of USC’s strategic plans,
even though their ideas about why this has occurred vary somewhat. What matters
to most participants is that the university has stated its formal support for
international endeavors. They see the real challenge as how to identify resources for
124
their own international initiatives and how to best take advantage of the positive
climate for international endeavors.
Reported Changes and Attainments
In the course of interviews for this project, it became apparent that nearly all of
the participants believed that USC had made some important strides in terms of its
internationalization effort in the past 10 to 20 years. These reported attainments can
be categorized into five groups: (1) global presence and networking; (2)
internationalization of faculty and research; (3) student mobility and exchange; (4)
international partnerships; and (5) campus leadership toward internationalization.
Global presence and networking
The attainment mentioned most often in the course of the interviews was the
establishment of several international offices by the university. Four offices in Asia,
located in Jakarta, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Taipei, were established beginning in the
mid-1990s. In 2005, the university opened a fifth international office in Mexico
City. The stated purpose of the offices is to help connect alumni and friends of the
university with teaching and research activities. Other specific roles for these offices
are to participate in fundraising, student recruitment, services to parents of
international students, assist local alumni, and help facilitate university partnerships
with governmental agencies, private corporations, and other academic institutions.
While there was varied opinion about how successful these offices have been in
125
pursuing each of the activities mentioned above, the general consensus of most
participants in this study is that their establishment was a good idea and one of the
major successes so far in the internationalization initiative. As one administrator
stated:
Central administrator: The idea of opening these international offices, which
have been very successful for USC, was also way ahead of its time.
Another added:
Central administrator: …that sort of presence in the minds of people in that
community, fostered by the international offices being there and keeping
USC in the minds and the hearts of the people of the community, that’s why
we have significant pockets of success.
Program staff, many who said they personally had never called upon the
international offices for support of their activities, nonetheless offered praise for their
establishment, as illustrated by these comments representative of their thoughts:
Program staff member, study abroad: USC has opened its offices in Asia
and now they’re opening one in Mexico City, which is a great development.
Program staff member, study abroad: And the development of these
overseas offices have, I think, been extremely successful and actually at a lot
of levels. I know that from a student perspective, they really have played an
important role in obtaining some internships for students; they’ve offered
some support; I know they’ve helped in some of these conferences; I think
that they’ve done some recruiting; so they’ve actually helped the University
across a lot of different areas.
USC faculty in large part shared the enthusiasm about the opening of these
offices. One explained how the staff in these offices have helped her to advance
research projects:
Faculty member, social work: …the amount of time that it cuts down on me
not having to be in Mexico City, but being able to call a USC employee in
126
Mexico City to assist in developing contacts and doing a lot of the work on
the ground for us there.
A central administrator, commenting on the serious challenges facing
internationalization for American higher education, noted the following:
Central administrator: If one looks at the numbers post-2001, and one sees
that across the United States, the number of applications from international
students dropped really significantly, where at USC, they dropped at a much
more gentle rate. But, I believe that’s because of our efforts, and in this case,
I would highlight, in particular, two particular things. One, the international
offices in Jakarta, Taiwan, Tokyo, and Hong Kong, and their ability and
engagement to represent in the local media, and to interact with families. The
second thing I would say is that we have these conferences in Asia.
Some participants who strongly supported the establishment of the international
offices noted the limited geographic reach brought about by their emphasis on Asian
locations. There was a general sense of excitement about the newest office opening
in Mexico City, although some challenges to this endeavor were acknowledged:
Central administrator: The international offices, I think, have been a big
asset for us to help reduce the transactions cost for faculty to travel, for deans
to travel, to do recruiting, to have students traveling. So, the architecture
course uses the office in Tokyo to help them, and uses the office in Southeast
Asia to help them. And, as you know, we just opened one in Mexico City.
That’s going to be a stretch, because we don’t have any alums in Mexico.
This is new territory. We ought to be doing stuff down there.
The USC Asia conferences, another manifestation of USC’s expanded presence
internationally, were mentioned nearly as often as the international offices as
examples of USC’s success, but most of these comments came from central
administrators and academic unit administrators, who are more likely to have
actually participated in the conferences. The Asia conferences, held in Hong Kong
(2001), Shanghai (2002), and Seoul (2004), aim to increase USC’s presence in Asia
127
by bringing together trustees, administrators, faculty, and alumni for gatherings
focused on key issues facing the Pacific Rim.
One administrator noted the occasional skepticism that greeted the
announcement of the first Asia conference:
Central administrator: I know that when we first talked to people about the
Asia Conference in Hong Kong that we had in 2001, the reaction was, “What
are you going to Asia for?
However, the same administrator claimed that these events were unique for an
American higher education institution, noting:
Central administrator: I think in Asia we’re probably pretty strong. The
conference we did was something that was really a first, a first, a second, and
a third, at that.
Noting some recent discussions about whether or not to continue holding the
Asia conferences in the future, an academic unit administrator and a faculty member
both stated their belief in the success of the previous conferences and their desire for
their continuation in the future. While at least two program staff who participated in
this study had attended one of the Asia conferences previously, no staff mentioned
these events as one of USC’s notable attainments in the area of internationalization,
suggesting that these events are tailored more for the benefit of administrators and
alumni.
Clearly focused on the networking and global presence aspect of
internationalization, several administrators stated that the founding of the
Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) in 1997 was a major success of the
past decade. This organization, started by USC’s President and modeled after the
128
Association of American Universities (AAU), is a consortium of 36 leading research
universities located in Pacific Rim countries. The APRU “…aims to foster
education, research and enterprise thereby contributing to the economic, scientific
and cultural advancement in the Pacific Rim.” (APRU website: www.apru.org).
The organization functions primarily at the presidential level, with a handful of key
administrators or faculty at each institution taking part in specific activities. As such,
administrators were more likely to have heard of APRU and have some ideas about
its purpose than staff and faculty.
As one administrator noted, the organization has only existed for eight years and
has the potential to grow even more active and influential with continued nurturing
and support from USC and other member institutions.
Central administrator: USC played a leadership role in creating APRU. I
think that was way ahead of its time. Now, there’s the Worldwide University
Network, and there’s Universitas 21 and these other things, but APRU
actually came before those things, and does things…began doing substantive
things earlier than those other networks. Now, that hasn’t been fully utilized,
or fully tapped yet, I mean, it’s still an emerging network in how it’s going to
really fully operate.
This comment highlights a kind of contradiction that appeared several times in
the interviews for this study. A noted attainment, in this case the creation of APRU,
was often tempered by concern that some opportunities have been missed for reaping
full benefit of the program or initiative.
Internationalization of faculty and research
Another way in which many felt the university has been successful is in the area
of internationalization of faculty, either through recruiting strong faculty from other
129
countries, or supporting activities that help domestic faculty to become more
international in their teaching and research. Interestingly, this was one of the only
attainments brought up by respondents in all participant groups.
Still focused on the role of APRU in forging connections among scholars at
different institutions, one administrator who has been heavily involved with APRU
activities described a special program for younger faculty aimed at establishing
Pacific Rim linkages and encouraging more international work by the faculty:
Central administrator: …it’s kind of an elite matching service. The goal is
that out of 20 of them that go on a two-week seminar, one week at an
American university, and one week at an Asian university, 20 of them that
might really become friends, intellectual, personal friends with two or three,
or four. And now, you may submit for a joint grant at NIH, or NSF, or the
Ford Foundation, and because you’ve got a colleague at Kyoto University,
Peking University, you’ve increased the chance of getting the grant. Now,
this stuff is not going to happen overnight. We’d be looking kind of long-
term development, and by design, it’s for assistant professors only. So, the
goal is, that early in their career, they’re going to meet people.
Several deans, associate deans, and staff members working in various academic
departments touted their schools’ success in attracting new international faculty over
the past 10-15 years.
Academic unit administrator, communication: …the big thing that’s
changed, is we used to say we were doing national job searches. We now do
international job searches. And, of course, when you hire an international
faculty member, your international commitments, roots, connections,
networks, they’re all fundamentally changed as a result of that.
Academic unit administrator, communication: We have, I think, some of the
most important research projects which are global projects, and that’s
possible, partly, because most of our most recent hires in communication are,
themselves, people who were not born in America.
Program staff member, business: …within my school and other schools, you
see a lot of faculty members who are international scholars, and I think that
130
really created international environment in the research, for the research and
for their studies, and I think that’s really a result of our efforts.
While many said that internationalization of faculty was proceeding admirably,
credit was not always assigned to the university’s strategic plan.
Academic unit administrator, communication: …the school is filled with
people who, themselves, are international in their background, and in their
research interests.
Interviewer: Has that been a purposeful intention that you’ve had, to
internationalize the faculty?
Academic unit administrator, communication: It would be nice to say that
was purposeful. In fact, I think it’s just that these are great scholars, and we
were hoping that people from wherever they are, were great scholars.
Among the faculty participants, newer faculty members responded more
favorably regarding the progress made in hiring international faculty and supporting
international research than did those who have been at the university for longer
periods of time. This is likely due to the fact that several of the newer faculty were
hired in part because of their international research interests and experience, and they
have made a point of seeking out all potential sources of internal support for their
continued activities. One recent hire explained the criteria used when deciding
where to apply for faculty positions, and how USC’s internationalization played a
part in the final decision to accept an opening at the university:
Faculty member, social work: So, there’s maybe 12 schools that I had
applied to and they were all schools that had certain criteria for myself. They
had to have at least a course in international social work or global issues,
some type of research center or research agenda, initiatives that show
commitment to international or comparative research. Faculty members who
were doing things abroad, that was important. International faculty on staff
at the university and student exchange programs--those were other factors
that I looked at.
131
This same faculty member was asked if her expectations were met upon arriving
at her new job at USC:
Faculty member, social work: …my impressions have exceeded my
expectations and not only within the school, but within the university. I think
I wasn’t aware of the extent to which there’s an international commitment
across departments and schools.
Another recently hired faculty member, recruited to USC in part due to
extensive international research experience, agreed that a supportive climate exists
for pursuing research projects on a global basis:
Faculty member, political science: In fact, there’s almost too much money
on the campus, because you know, I really used to rely…[previous institution
deleted] is nowhere near as generous as USC with the on-campus funding,
and I was always having to rely on external grants. And now, I feel like…the
university is so generous with funding my international research.
Since several faculty who had been at the institution for longer periods had
complained about a lack of resources made available by the central administration to
support international endeavors, this faculty member was asked how internal funding
sources had been identified:
Faculty member, political science: You have to take a project to them, I
mean, they’re not going to come and find you. You have to take a project to
them, and I consistently took projects to them. But, they’re the ones that
recruited me, right? They’re the ones that came looking.
Another faculty member, involved in the hiring process of her unit, explained
how internationalization had become a formal part of her school’s search process:
Faculty member, social work: I worked on the Search Committee last year,
and that was definitely one of our strong criteria, one that we were definitely
looking at, was people who have commitment to diversity, international
issues, international research, so that was something that we were considering
in hiring.
132
Although most professors who had been at USC for a decade or more appeared
less enthusiastic about the university’s progress in internationalizing the faculty, one
did acknowledge that one centrally-supported initiative had made a positive impact
in some schools:
Faculty member, public administration: I think that several years ago, the
provost encouraged the school to hire new faculty members who have
research fields in the Pacific Rim, and in this way I think several new people
came in, I don’t know exactly how many. I think maybe 10 or 20 people
came in, and that was a good move. Some schools participated in this
program and some schools didn’t. I think the arrangement was that the
provost provided half of the salary or something for the first three years, this
kind of arrangement. That started in about ’97 or so.
Study abroad and student exchange
Developments in the area of student mobility and exchange programs were
highlighted by several administrators, faculty and staff, but very few people claimed
a direct link between these attainments and specific new resources brought about by
the strategic plans. Instead, most staff and faculty involved in working with
international students or study abroad programs explained that they felt generally
supported and encouraged to continue their work in this area.
One administrator did point out that some new financial resources have been
allocated to schools and departments offering programs related to study abroad:
Central administrator: …with relatively small grants of maybe $5,000,
$8,000 a year, the School of Architecture now has an Asian site for its
summer lab, an 8 or 12 unit lab for about 20 students, it’s the University of
Malaya, and the School of Policy Planning and Development, our Center for
International Business also supports sending 20 or 25 of their students for
133
four or five weeks, this year to Peking University, and possibly to Brazil,
another group.
Those involved with study abroad programs at the university have engaged in an
ongoing debate about the role of foreign languages in study abroad, and the
applicability of study abroad programs to professionally-oriented degree programs.
One foreign-language professor lamented the fact that many of the university’s
newest study abroad programs for undergraduates have no language requirements at
all. Conversely, representatives from professional schools that are sponsoring many
of the new programs argued that this development has been a very positive change
that has opened the opportunity for study abroad to vastly increased numbers of
students. As one academic unit administrator noted:
Academic unit administrator, engineering: I mean, the attitude here in the
early 80’s was, you know, anybody that didn’t speak a language or wasn’t in
liberal arts, it was thought, well, why do they need to go overseas? There’s
no reason. If you’re not an art history major, why would you want to go
overseas? If you’re not an English major, why would you want to go
overseas? They saw no value in it for professional students at all.
Adding to the sentiment about the growing professionalization of motivations
for study abroad, a staff member who works with study abroad programs who has
seen a change in students’ motivations for international study stated:
Program staff member, study abroad: … you don’t see that many students
anymore who walk into the office and say, “I just want to go abroad, I just
want to get out of here and do something different.” Most students are
coming in because they want to pursue some kind of specific course for
overseas. That’s the difference that I’ve definitely have seen.
While some new undergraduate study abroad programs have been added in
recent years, increased student demand may be outpacing the availability of
134
university-sponsored programs. Some staff noted that many students, unable to find
(or be accepted into) a suitable USC study abroad program, often look outside of
USC for specific programs operated by other institutions. This trend is not all that
unusual, especially given that very few universities offer study abroad programs to
every destination to which a student may be interested to travel and study. An
academic unit administrator, noting the increased demand for a summer study abroad
program, explained:
Academic unit administrator, engineering: So, it is starting to be a very
competitive application process for our program. I can remember when we
first started, anybody who applied could go, and a couple years, we only had
12 students, and everybody who applied got to go. So, the demand for it has
definitely increased.
Many participants in this study felt that student demand for overseas study
opportunities has risen over the past 10-15 years, but most agreed that this may be
due to overall concerns about globalization and the need for international experience,
not anything specific the university has done to promote study abroad. Although not
unanimous, the prevailing view of study participants was that more needs to be done
to encourage study abroad, despite the modest gains reported here.
Nationwide, professionals in the field of international education and study
abroad have long discussed ways to get students to consider studying in destinations
outside of the most popular, Western European, study abroad locations. While the
university has focused some attention on establishment of new study opportunities,
especially in Asia, the numbers of students interested in such offerings is still
relatively low. One staff member, disagreeing with the sentiment that the university
135
has not made progress on this front, explained that the university’s new commitment
to expanding the range of study abroad destinations has helped, commenting:
Program staff member, study abroad: There’s been a slight increase in the
number of students who want to study in nontraditional areas in Asia, in
Africa, in Latin America, but some of that is because we’ve actually added a
lot of programs.
While some felt that the university was doing a good job in this area, many more
saw this as a shortfall in the internationalization agenda. The contradiction of views
can in part be explained by USC’s decentralized structure. It is entirely possible, and
was evidenced by study participants, that staff and administrators in different
academic units may have widely varying views about the university’s emphasis on
study abroad, depending on the support their own programs have received. One
positive comment regarding study abroad follows:
Program staff member, study abroad: In terms of overseas programs, you
know, I think we do a really good job here. The College does a fantastic job
in identifying areas that students are interested in, and that are in interesting
places. And, that’s kind of the catch, it’s 90% of the kids want to go to
France, or Spain, or Italy, or London, and it’s identifying those other areas
that would be of benefit to them, and getting them to go on, I think the
college does a very good job at doing that.
For the most part, participants agreed that there is more student interest in study
abroad than the university’s capacity to offer suitable programs. As one staff
member noted:
Program staff member, study abroad: We’ve seen our numbers go up. You
know increase in demand. We’ve added programs, and those programs are
well attended. Yeah, we’ve definitely had more demand, we’ve had more
students going. I think if there weren’t some barriers in place, more students
would go and take advantage of the programs.
136
These perceived barriers, as well as other thoughts on the shortfalls in the area of
study abroad, will be presented in a subsequent section focused on criticisms of
USC’s progress in internationalization.
Enrollment of international students was seen as more of an existing strength
that pre-dated the recent focus on internationalization, as opposed to something that
has arisen from the strategic initiatives of the 1990s to today. Trends in the make-up
of international students at USC mirror those happening around the US over the past
few decades. Several respondents described the shift in geographic representation
from the Middle East in the 1960s and 1970s to a population made up largely of
students from East and South Asia from the 1980s up to today.
Faculty and staff felt that international students continued to be a strong factor in
USC’s internationalization, and a contributor to the university’s rapidly rising status
and prestige.
Faculty member, humanities: Well, so far as I can see what is happening at
USC is basically, fundamentally, it is to attract students from all kinds of
countries, and I think that USC has made big steps in that direction, maybe
more than any other university…I think it has helped us raise the standards of
the university.
Commenting on the reasons for USC’s preeminence in enrollment of
international students, one staff member proclaimed that several factors have
contributed:
Program staff member, international student services: I think it’s because of
the quality of our programs, the fact that we’re very, very popular right now
and the fact that we’re in Los Angeles and our climate, our reputation, the
quality of instruction that’s here, the fact that our faculty are widely
published and most of our students are graduate students are all factors of
why we have not seen it. We kind of thank our lucky stars that we’re in this
137
situation now. Lots of schools would like to be where we are in terms of our
international momentum. Will it continue to hold up? I don’t know. We’re
watching it carefully. I know that the admissions office and the academic
units have increased their recruitment activities.
While some other participants claimed that recruitment efforts have been
stepped up in the past decade, many others noted that the university has continued
attracting these students without much expended effort in terms of aggressive
recruitment efforts. Many administrators’ view seemed to be that by focusing
attention on expanding USC’s global brand through a variety of collaborations and
activities abroad, international students will continue to see the university as a top
choice for their future study.
International partnerships and outreach
Most participants felt that the university was very interested in fostering
partnerships with foreign universities, corporations, and in some cases, governments.
Many pointed to USC’s growing respect worldwide as a key factor influencing the
development of such partnerships and collaborations. As one staff member noted:
Program staff member, study abroad: When I’ve visited universities
overseas, there’s a keen interest in exchanges with USC because USC is
USC. And in those cases, doing undergraduate international exchange
agreements or programs, you know the brand marketing would definitely be
beneficial.
One academic unit administrator argued that the university’s strategic initiative
on internationalization has been instrumental in encouraging development of strong
ties with overseas institutions:
138
Academic unit administrator, engineering: I mean, we have collaborative
research going on with Airbus, we have collaborative research going on with
Korean Airlines. Our faculty work with universities in Paris, and that all kind
of came together in the last 10, 15 years. And, I do think it’s got a lot to do
with, again, kind of getting this cohesive message saying we should all be
doing this, in some way. So, it has changed quite a bit.
This sentiment was prevalent with most of the interview respondents. Deans,
faculty and staff all reported their perception that the climate on campus is
supportive for fostering international partnerships, even without plentiful central
resources being distributed for this purpose. Many also reported that little red tape
gets in the way of establishing such contacts abroad, compared to their understanding
of similar procedures at other universities.
An example of an outreach activity that had been successful was an effort to
encourage research and development projects addressing needs in Southeast Asia
after the disastrous 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. An administrator described the
initiative as follows:
Central administrator: The provost identified a certain…actually, it’s
$60,000, to set asi de for some seed money for some projects about what are
some ideas that USC faculty could come up with as ways to help address
some of the issues that were realized out of the tsunami. And, there are five
or six of them…One of the projects is…this is a terrifying thing, 80% of the
healthcare workers in Banda Aceh were killed. We’re [US government and
aid organizations] sending massive amounts of material and instructional
materials to the people there to help them deal with their health crisis. It’s all
in English. So, our faculty have come up with a fast moving English
instruction project online to be able to take people who speak Bahasa
Indonesia, typically, or some other language, and to move them quickly into
understanding enough about the terminology of the healthcare books, so
they’re able to understand them.
Further illuminating the effect of this grant program, a program staff member from a
department which was involved with the tsunami outreach project added:
139
Program staff member, ESL instruction program: The provost, after it
happened, provided funds for seven different grants, and so, people
submitted, and our faculty got one of them, and it was based on the fact that
we had taught one of the students who had lost her life in Banda Aceh. So,
that started and her brother contacted us, and he’s a medical doctor, and they
needed obvious resources in English translation of these epidemiology
studies. So, we thought, well, we could provide that, and we looked into
some learning programs, and we heard of this grant, got it. At the grant
banquet, or whatever, the thank you, we found out who all the other people
were who got the grants, and there were some really, really interesting things
happening. So, not just in Indonesia, but also, in Thailand, and in Singapore,
Malaysia. So, that’s, you know, very interesting for us, and hopeful, to see
that those kinds of outreach activities are going on, and could lead to lots of
other kinds of research. Not that it’s just sort of this Band-Aid that happens
after a huge disaster, and then, five years later, there’s no trace of us,
anywhere, but there are more longitudinal kinds of things.
Campus Leadership Toward Internationalization
Most participants in this study thought that the university’s leadership has done a
good job of setting the stage for internationalization and making this a prominent
aspect of the institution’s agenda, even if many of the specific objectives have yet to
be realized. There seems to be a prevailing sense that the groundwork has been laid,
and much of the actual work that will help USC realize its goal of being recognized
as a truly global leading institution has yet to be done.
Many in the central administration and leaders of academic units pointed to the
president and board of trustees as offering the necessary encouragement for success.
According to one academic unit administrator:
Academic unit administrator, communication: Our leadership team on
campus has strongly understood the importance of international education,
even if some other elements of our stakeholders haven’t understood it as well.
I mean, I’ve had interactions with Board of Trustees members, for instance,
who say, “Why is it so important that we send our students overseas so that
140
we have these…why not just keep them in LA?” And, I think, sometimes,
you have to argue the importance for stakeholders who don’t see it. But,
clearly, the president, the provost, the vice provosts, leading members of the
faculty, have a strong belief in internationalization.
Certain key events were noted from the past 15 years which helped solidify
support for making internationalization one of the university’s key objectives. An
administrator described one such event:
Central administrator: …there was something else that occurred. About 10
years ago, [President] Sample took the trustees, on an international trip.
Every April, there’s a trustee’s retreat and so that year they took all the
trustees to a tour of Asia. And I think that had a big impact on the trustees
and showed his interest in and support of an international mission.
The growing international composition of the Board of Trustees itself was
lauded as a major accomplishment by several study participants, across all
categories. According to one administrator:
Central administrator: At the very top leadership of the university, the
Board of Trustees, we’ve seen to it that at least three of the current members
are from outside of the United States, and I think that in order to really do this
well, you’ve got to have the very leadership at the top providing the input to
make it happen.
Most interview subjects felt that the leadership provided by the university’s
President has been strong and appropriate for the task of internationalization. One
professor, who has been at the institution for over three decades, noted how the
perception of USC globally has vastly improved in large part due to the efforts of the
current President:
Faculty member, humanities: I’m saying that under this president, these 13
years, the biggest changes have occurred and our importance in the
international community and the image has started changing....
141
Noticeably sparse in the participants’ view of internationalization attainments
were comments about curricular developments. Likewise, while many participants
felt it important that internationalization and global perspectives needed to be a
central overarching part of all that the university does, very few reported that this has
been successful to date. Three examples of statements from people who remarked
that they had observed some positive change in this area over the past 10-15 years all
came from academic unit administrators:
Academic unit administrator, law: …I guess I read into the
internationalization aspect of the strategic plan more as one in which we
would enroll students from outside the United States. And, it may have been
that that’s kind of how I was tracking, though, too. That was kind of the
information I was getting from our dean, in terms of what his desire was.
But, as I read the new plan, it seems to me, and certainly what we’re doing
with the law school, and what our d ean has thought to do, is make our
students better prepared for the global economy, …and it’s such an important
part of what we’re doing, in terms of developing our programs…
Academic unit administrator, social work: …when I came here, there was
virtually nothing, except what people did on their own. If they went
somewhere, they might ask the school to help them, but it was a very…it was
not an institutional…there was nothing institutional about it. And so, the
opportunities that I’ve offered to people have been to support their travel and
so on to Asia
Academic unit administrator, engineering: Ten years ago, it was like, oh, we
do this program every once in a while, and every once in a while, a faculty
member would say, “I’ve got this big contact over in Switzerland and I’m
going,” but there wasn’t this concentrated effort to where else can we go,
what else can we do, what else can we work with?
In summary, the general consensus from interview participants was that the
university has taken the necessary steps over the past 12 years to set a foundation for
increased internationalization, and has begun the process of hiring people with the
expertise and interest to make this happen. Most of those directly involved with
142
international activities of some kind believe that there is implicit support for these
kinds of endeavors. The greatest attainment s during this period of time were
reported to be in the area of networking and connections abroad, especially through
such manifestations as USC’s international offices, the Asia conferences,
establishment of APRU, and other outreach efforts.
The following section will present some of the perceived shortfalls in the
university’s pursuit of internationalization and some criticisms of the specific ways
the university has gone about carrying out this strategy.
A Global Vision Not Yet Realized? Perceived Shortfalls
in Progress Toward a More Internationalized University
Despite their nearly unanimous support for the idea of having
internationalization as a key part of USC’s mission and strategic plan, the interview
participants also brought up several disappointments with the progress of this
initiative at the university. Three specific areas were mentioned most often and will
be discussed first: (1) study abroad; (2) internationalization of faculty; and (3)
utilization of international students as a resource. A presentation of other areas of
concern will follow.
Study Abroad
Across all categories of participants in this study except for faculty , respondents
expressed discontent with the state of study abroad programs for American students
143
at the university. Faculty typically had no opinion on the state of study abroad or felt
that the university was doing a reasonably good job in supporting these programs.
Proposed solutions, however, were quite rare. Nearly all respondents felt that for an
institution of its size, and considering the stated international focus, the university
should be sending more students overseas than it does. Representative of these
comments are the following:
Central administrator: But, I do think the study abroad experience, or an
international experience for undergraduates, in particular, is a critical piece of
what we want. We just don’t have quite the same intentionality about
institutional strategy to do that as we do some of these other things.
Central administrator: I think most people at USC think it would be a good
thing for our students if more of them studied abroad. We just haven’t quite
figured out how to do that.
Academic unit administrator, communication: I think, if I could have every
student have an international experience, if we had the ability to do that, I
think that’d be wonderful, so we’re not maybe quite as far along as we’d like
to be…
These comments illustrate a key contradiction between the stated concerns of the
campus leadership and the resulting actions taken. The strategic plans argue, and
many interview participants claimed, that study abroad should receive stronger
emphasis as part of the university’s internationalization initiative. But over a decade
since the 1994 plan was enacted, campus leaders still cannot point to effective
strategies to support increased study abroad, especially for undergraduates. Instead,
many brought up the point that tuition revenue concern is a limiting factor.
144
The university’s latest strategic plan mentions several manifestations of
internationalization, but does not discuss study abroad programs. As one
administrator noted about this issue:
Central administrator: …study abroad is not mentioned because we don’t
think that the university, as a whole, has a good, strong program, and the
college as a whole doesn’t have a good strong program, and for all kinds of
reasons, but one, is the bottom line; we’re losing if we send them out. That
may be another reason, but the Provost’s Office, if we knew there was going
to be 100 gone from a school in a year, we would set the structure so the dean
could admit 100 new students.
Several possible reasons for the lag in study abroad by American students were
offered in the interviews, ranging from student apathy and disinterest to curricular
structures in place that act as disincentives to study abroad. Regarding student
resistance, one staff member recounted a typical interaction:
Program staff member, study abroad: I still don’t think that we have reached
a critical mass on that. I still believe that there are a number of individuals
that believe… you know, one of the things that I used to get all the time was,
you know, “You’re studying Japanese, why don’t you go to Japan?” “Oh, I
don’t want to. I’ve never been out of the country before.” “Well, this would
be a good opportunity.” “I don’t want to go for that long.” “Well, it’s not
really that long.” “Well, you know, I’m from Manhattan Beach, you know, I
am going to miss the summer, the beach, the surfing,” and it’s that type of
attitude, which is very, very strange to me.
An administrator agreed that lack of student demand is one of the problems:
Central administrator: …we still have a very difficult time getting students
to study abroad.
Another administrator acknowledged that the university has not made study
abroad one of the primary areas of focus in the internationalization initiative:
Central administrator: We’re woefully behind our peer group in the
percentage of undergraduates who study abroad, and there’s just no question
about that. I don’t think it’s something that USC doesn’t want to improve or
145
expand. It’s just that, you know, a lot of universities have…the universities
that do that in a very comprehensive way, send some large number of their
students to their own programs in other countries. They will allow them to
do other things, but that’s just not something that USC’s ever decided to
make an investment in. You know, we don’t have a little campus in London,
and a little campus in Paris, and so on and so forth. And, I don’t know that
USC is going to do that. We, clearly, are focusing it in other ways.
Several participants, mostly staff members and academic unit administrators
responsible for study abroad programs, noted the curricular restraints that make
study abroad difficult for some students. One characteristic example follows:
Program staff member, student recruitment: I think a greater emphasis is
needed on our own students going out to travel and spending time studying in
other places. I think that’s still quite a small number of students that do that,
compared to the size of the university. I think the curriculum, the set-up does
not really allow for that so much, the fact that the students can’t pick up any
GE credits, so, therefore, virtually, all they can take is sort of elective things
in the summer, unless they’re doing a USC program during the academic
year…
The issue of the relationship of foreign language instruction and study abroad
was a key concern of many people. A prevailing opinion that USC should have
stronger foreign language requirements was evident, and many felt that this would
lead to vastly increased numbers of students spending time abroad for language
study. On the other hand, an argument was made by a few participants that reliance
on foreign language study for study abroad is an inappropriate strategy, and that
many more students would go abroad if new programs are offered in destinations
where foreign language proficiency is not essential. One such comment follows:
Academic unit administrator, communication: Quite frankly, on most
campuses, overseas studies, and in USC, it’s been one of the things I’ve been
trying to change, overseas studies for many years was kind of a capped deal
in the language department. The only students that were going abroad were
146
students who were majoring in the language courses and they were going to
places where they could take language instruction.
The counter argument that strengthened foreign language programs would
encourage more study abroad, and would diversify the study destinations, is
represented by this statement from a staff member:
Program staff member, study abroad: …we need better geographical
distribution, I think. We’re very Europe-heavy, England-heavy. I think if we
had at USC a better, more serious foreign language curriculum, I think
students would feel better prepared to go to non-English speaking countries.
Our Latin America offerings are very limited. We have nothing in the
Caribbean. We have these huge, big geographical gaps that I would like to
see filled.
While many professionals across the US in the field of international education
have expressed concern that minority students are underrepresented in study abroad
programs, this issue only arose once during the interviews for this project:
Program staff member, study abroad: I really worry about minority students
that we haven’t done enough for them.
The same staff member discussed how financial issues are a concern to many
students when they consider whether or not to participate in a study abroad program:
Program staff member, study abroad: I would like to see more students go
abroad and not just the students who can afford it.
On the same issue, an academic unit administrator added:
Academic unit administrator, engineering: I don’t think we could ever, ever
say half of our population…and, we’re big. I mean, that would be over 1,000
students going overseas. We would have to have a dedicated space…office
to do that. And, there’s just some students that…we’ve got enough students
that come from overseas, anyway, you know, they don’t want to do it. Other
students want to work during the summer, because it’s so expensive here that
they have to work during the summer. Engineering students have typically
greater financial needs than other students. So, there’s going to be students
147
that will say, “I’d love to go, but I can’t afford it, because I’ve got to work
this summer and help pay my tuition.”
A variety of other challenges were mentioned that make it difficult for the
university to enhance it’s offerings in study abroad programs. One professional
school that currently offers only summer study abroad programs is hearing from its
students the desire for more study abroad opportunities, but the school has not made
the necessary resources available to meet these demands:
Academic unit administrator, engineering: A lot of our students are going,
“Well, why don’t you do a semester abroad program?” We could easily
create a staff position with some resources, and do a lot more, but the bottom
line is, it’s money, and it’s people, and it’s time, so…
The issue of tuition loss with study abroad was raised by many participants,
most often staff members who manage study abroad programs throughout the
university. As one stated:
Program staff member, study abroad: However, in the business office, you
know, they freak out when they see the amount of money going out, I mean,
our Dean tries to insulate us from those pressures and those issues but, we
know it’s there. We know that pressure is there. The more students we send,
the more potential that tuition money’s going out. You hear a lot of
complaints of how study abroad is a tax, it represents an outflow of tuition
dollars, an outflow of financial aid money.
Clearly many of the staff who organize study abroad programs experience this
tension between a desire to grow programs and send more students around the world,
and concerns about the loss of tuition dollars. As noted earlier, most USC study
abroad programs for undergraduates involve participation in programs run by other
US-based or foreign institutions. Since very few of these programs are true
exchanges, with foreign students coming to USC to take the place of those sent
148
abroad, the tuition loss issue remains, and the institution seems to continue to wrestle
with this challenge as it acknowledges a desire to increase undergraduate
participation in study abroad.
Although not nearly as frequent, participants occasionally commented on
students’ perceptions that Los Angeles and USC provided so much interaction with
people from around the world that spending a semester or more overseas is
unnecessary:
Program staff member, study abroad: And, that’s one of the things that I
have at USC, that when we start saying, “Oh, there’s 5,000, 6,000
international students here,” a lot of the students are like, “Why do I need to
go overseas? In my classroom, they’re all around me.”
Most of the comments above regarding concern about study abroad programs
and participation at USC are focused on undergraduate students. In general, the
study participants felt that the institution had done a good job in encouraging
graduate students to gain international experience, especially in the Marshall School
of Business which for several years has required all MBA students to participate in a
short-term overseas trip as part of a course. These programs have become a
signature element of USC’s business school and are used to draw students to the
MBA programs. Many people interviewed for this project pointed to the Marshall
MBA programs as an example that could, and probably should, be repeated in other
schools and programs now that they have been run successfully for a number of
years.
What is interesting to note is that despite prevailing opinion that USC should be
doing more to encourage and facilitate study abroad, especially for undergraduate
149
students, there does not seem to be a sense of urgency to make this happen through
direct policy formation or major incentives to grow new programs and send more
students overseas. Respondents at all levels seemed perplexed on what steps to take
to make this happen, and the obstacles appear to be viewed as quite substantial.
Internationalization of Faculty
Concerns and criticisms about the internationalization of USC’s faculty were
directed primarily at three shortfalls: lackluster recruitment of faculty from abroad
or with international interests; criticism of many faculty members’ disinterest in
things international; and poor connection between the strategic initiative and the
faculty evaluation/promotion process.
Noting USC’s specific interest in the Pacific Rim in its recent strategic plans,
one administrator noted the following:
Central administrator: Something I don’t think we’ve done too well-- We’ve
not, in the past ten years, recruited very many faculty with deep expertise to
societies of Asia and Latin America. I’m not sure if we’ve had a net gain.
Some people leave, some people come, and maybe it’s a small gain, but it’s
not much.
Asked if the university had special programs and incentives in place to draw
these new hires to the university, the same administrator responded:
Central administrator: I think both the provost and I both look back on the
last ten years as this is a failure. And, there’s all kinds of counter pressures
on faculty slots, and so on and so forth, and what we could tend to be looking
for is the best historian on something, and the best political scientist. I think
it would be very healthy if we said, “Gee, we want to have about 20 real
experts in other societies that are in our strategic plan.” Not every society,
but China, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia broadly, if somebody’s an expert on
Singapore demography, and somebody who’s an expert on Indonesia,
150
somebody who’s an economist, and then, you have a cluster. And, the same
thing for Latin American. There’s very few people, what we consider as
Latin American specialists.
Faculty, too, had opinions on this issue. One expressed concern about faculty
hiring decisions that aimed at attracting international faculty, but neglected to find
the best possible scholars available in their fields:
Faculty member, economics: …by the disciplines they’re not looked at as
very strong appointments. And, therefore, you have this tradeoff, of there are
some international folks, but they’re not really helping departments being
rated in their disciplines. They’re kind of weak people, but now, you can
appoint strong people in these areas, and I think that’s been the tendency
recently but there were previous problems. So that, I think, causes a problem
when you had a number of those kinds of appointments. They were an
attempt to try international but, not with the strongest people they could get…
Another faculty member made a different argument, stating that intense current
focus on bringing in well-recognized faculty to the university can be detrimental to
the recruitment of strong junior faculty with ambitious international research
interests:
Faculty member, social sciences: …as far as I’m concerned, if we could
have hired five new assistant professors, the job market’s so bad, we could
have gotten the cream of the Ivy League with really, really exciting various
international research agendas, but we didn’t. You know, they went with the
star search, and for my department, it’s been a disaster.
These two concerns came together for an administrator who expressed some
frustration with the ability to gather the necessary resources to attract faculty who are
both internationally oriented in their work and recognized as being among the best in
their field:
Central administrator: If a Provost’s Office had fund-raising capability,
serious fund-raising capability…if a development staff was inside the
Provost’s office as it is at Stanford and most other places, meaning that the
151
senior development person reports to the Provost, then I think we could have
probably gotten more Asian or Latin American specialists, because we’d say
a fund-raising target is raising to hand out chairs in contemporary affairs for
Asia or Latin America or something. And yes, it may be difficult, but this is
a high priority, and under our structure, we can’t do that. It has not been
done.
The general sentiment about the issue of new faculty recruitment was
summarized by one professor’s comments:
Faculty member, education: They’ve committed occasionally to
international faculty, but then they don’t seem to follow up. It takes a real
commitment. A lot of the strategic initiative seems very dimly supported.
Bringing in new faculty is only one way in which to internationalize the
professoriate. Regarding current faculty, there were mixed views on the overall
international interest and expertise of USC’s existing faculty, and several participants
noted some examples of outstanding international scholars who now teach and
conduct research at USC. Others did bring up some criticisms and challenges to
encouraging more involvement in international activities. One professor noted that
even when departments within the university have put forward resources to
encourage international research, often these funds have gone unused or unnoticed
by potential applicants:
Faculty member, political science: I’m not quite sure how to do this, but
faculty are not involved in this global initiative. For the most part, they’re
not involved. The Center for International Studies gives out $2,500 research
grants for the summer, and they were having trouble disbursing funds up until
a month ago. I mean, you’ve kind of got to reach a point where you wonder
how many research-oriented faculty you have. I apply for everything, and
many people do. I think it’s time to kind of stop the big global discourse; this
not going to happen with these strategic plans.
152
Some staff who work with study abroad programs expressed frustration at times
in getting help from faculty in promoting the idea of study abroad among students.
One noted:
Program staff member, study abroad: I think a lot of faculty don’t really
know about what the University is doing internationally. And the faculty are
the people that really matter, ultimately. They’re the ones that are in contact
with the students; they’re the ones the students most listen to; I mean they’re
kind of the talent, as it were, at the University. So I’m always amazed
actually when I hear from students that say “oh, my professor said this or told
me I couldn’t do that or we don’t have a program here.” There’s just a lot of
misinformation or lack of information out there.
The other criticism of USC’s internationalization as it relates to faculty
concerned the procedures in place to evaluate faculty and make decisions on
promotions and tenure. Several administrators and faculty stated that there is a
disconnect between the formalized internationalization strategy and the criteria used
in faculty evaluations in most academic units. One administrator described this
situation as follows:
Central administrator: I think that when you look at the compensation
reward evaluation process within the university, we’re not putting the same
money where our mouth is, especially faculty. You’ll see more now where
they’re getting kudos for doing collaborative research across departments,
and part of this has to do with everything from Renaissance scholars on
down, where you’ve got students that are flowing. We probably don’t see a
similar “evaluation metric” about, OK, what have been your international
components?
A new faculty member, very involved in international teaching and research
activities, provided similar thoughts
Faculty member, social work: I went to a tenure orientation last fall, I
believe, and it was interesting to me to see how the tenure guidelines are set
up, which I feel maybe don’t embrace the internationalism that’s such a
cornerstone or a pillar of our strategic plan.
153
Another faculty member agreed with this sentiment, and shared a similar view:
Faculty member, social sciences: When you go up for promotion, all right,
or review for your salary, now, granted, this is a little touchy, but there’s just
no link between the strategic plan…I mean, if they told some people, “Look,
your participation in this globalization initiative would be greatly valued, and
it will weigh in your merit review,” you might see some more action, but
there’s no connection, right?
Asked what could be done to strengthen the ties between the strategic plan
initiatives and the tenure/promotion process, one faculty member suggested:
Faculty member, social work: …they need to be revisited and meticulously
looked at through an international lens to understand if this is realistic for
somebody who’s agenda is completely international, and I think that when
schools make a commitment to working internationally or having an
international presence, I think that something like the tenure promotion
guidelines need to be revisited.
Utilization of International Students as a Resource
When asked to describe any shortfalls related to the internationalization agenda
at USC, a large number of interview participants included their disappointment with
the level of interaction between international and domestic students at or near the top
of their list. Interestingly, however, no faculty members expressed this concern,
perhaps because in their role, they interact with international and domestic students
in the shared classroom environment.
For those who did express concern, there was a prevailing opinion that a key
reason for attracting and enrolling international students to U.S. colleges and
universities is to create opportunities for these students to interact with Americans.
This interaction is thought to be essential to bring about some of the most promising
154
outcomes of international education—enhanced understanding between people
(especially future leaders) of various nations.
Illustrative of the general concern on this issue is the following comment from
an administrator:
Academic unit administrator, social work: …we don’t help our American
students benefit from the presence of the international students on this
campus, so our students don’t learn much, our faculty don’t learn much from
their presence.
This issue is one that has obviously been on the minds of people at USC for
some time. Most, however, in almost exasperated tones, claimed to have very few
ideas how to combat the perceived lack of strong connections between international
and domestic students. Some felt that it is the American students’ obligation to take
advantage of international students’ presence, while others noted that international
students often stay within their own language and cultural groups, forming tight
communities that provide all of the support and interaction they want and need.
Program staff member, social work: I don’t know what the answer to that is,
because Americans don’t take advantage of the presence of international
students. I don’t know the answer at all.
Program staff member, student affairs: …bringing together the international
students with the domestic students . they’re just staying with their own
language group, you know, and they speak Chinese or Japanese or whatever
they speak together and they don’t get a chance to mix with the domestic
students as much as they’d like to. And, I think a lot of students feel like they
would like to have more of this, you know getting together, but it’s not
happening.
Program staff member, international student services: I would say the
majority of the domestic students, particularly at the undergraduate level, we
haven’t really found a way to hook their interest so far, and students from
other countries, they still affiliate. The Taiwanese stay with the Taiwan
group, the Chinese stay with the Chinese. There would be more…you’d see
155
less of that group specific bonding and sheltering, and more easy interaction
across all levels, in the classroom, socially, in organizations.
An administrator summed up this concern by describing the type of learning that
could be realized from greater interaction between international and domestic
students:
Central administrator: …an internationalization activity that I would rate
very highly, very important, is one we don’t do very well, and it’s the
utilization of the international students on campus, as a source of knowledge
about subject matter, politics, economics, history if you’re in a classroom.
But, also, as a source of knowledge about their culture, more broadly about
their history, and more broadly, even if you’re not in a classroom with them.
Saying we don’t do it very well doesn’t mean I know how to do it, and I’ve
interviewed lots of students about it. It’s not an easy thing to energize.
For a concern that was so widespread across the campus community, there were
surprisingly few examples of programmatic attempts that had been implemented to
bridge the perceived gap. Exceptions did exist, including some promising initiatives
involving domestic students as mentors (and conversational language partners) for
international teaching assistants.
Alumni
Another common complaint from interview participants was the belief that the
university has not traditionally maintained close ties to its international alumni, while
at the same time being recognized as a university with extremely loyal domestic
alumni. While efforts are underway to strengthen ties, it seems that the university is
trying desperately to make up lost ground as tens of thousands of former
156
international students have lost contact with the institution upon leaving the
university.
Participants noted that USC has underutilized its international alumni for such
things as recruitment of students and for establishing contacts abroad. Staff from
two professional schools that many see as among the most internationalized at USC
shared similar frustrations:
Program staff member, study abroad: USC doesn’t keep up with the
international alums. And I found that out when -- we don’t even have a list
here in [school name deleted]. And my boss said "Go to the development
people." They had no list. They said go to the alumni office. And I was
working with the alumni office on a project and they said, “our lists aren’t
very good.” And I think there should be some way of keeping them in the
Trojan family.
Program staff member, study abroad: I think what we are lacking within the
school is a good database of our international alumni, and I think that’s been
a problem for [school name deleted], and also at the university level. And,
it’s been one of my frustrations through all of my years here that, you know,
we don’t really have good data on our former students, which is a pity.
Most participants believed that international alumni have a desire to stay
connected with the university. While events such as the Asia conferences have in
part attempted to involve international alumni in that part of the world in a major
USC networking activity, many others feels disconnected from the institution. One
staff member recounted conversations with some international alumni of the
university:
Program staff member, student recruitment: …there’s always sort of hopes
and dreams that the alums have for being involved in a stronger, more
effective, closer way. I think, sometimes, while we have a lot of lip service
that we pay to all aspects, when someone, then, graduates and goes home, it’s
hard for them to keep in touch, I think. I think that’s changing, I’ve seen
some changes, you know, with the alumni club structures, and that sort of
157
thing, but not totally. I don’t think it has the same level of interaction as it
does with our U.S. alums. Obviously, distance is a factor, but, you know, but
even the idea of sending, getting a Trojan Family magazine, I’m not sure that
that’s mailed overseas.
An issue raised by some involved the university’s latest efforts to compensate
for earlier lost connections with international alumni. Some believed that a
disproportionate effort was being made to connect with alumni in Asia, to the
detriment of the university’s graduates in Latin America, Europe, and other regions.
The concern regarding Latin America is part of a widespread concern that the
university has not done enough in its internationalization initiative to establish
connections in this region.
Expanding USC’s Vision of Pacific Rim Focus to Include Latin America
As noted earlier, very recent developments, including the opening of a new
international office in Mexico City, have indicated growing attention being paid to
the Latin American part of the Pacific Rim at USC. This is a welcome development
by many at the institution, as there was a good amount of disappointment with
progress in this area to date. Criticism of the university’s definition of the Pacific
Rim was frequent, with many stating that until now, Pacific Rim has meant only
Asia to the university’s leaders. As stated by one staff member:
Program staff member, international student services: I just think there’s a
lag…between saying it’s one of the focuses, and really, having it be, by all
other measures, really being one of the focuses. And, the only reason I say
that, is because in ’94, it clearly said, “Building stronger ties to Latin
America and Asia.” The Latin American component seems to me, to be quite
weak.
158
Several faculty shared similar sentiments, including this typical response
lamenting the inability to attract Latin American faculty:
Faculty member, economics: We really haven’t done enough with Latin
America, so I think relative to its proximity, in what makes sense to Los
Angeles, they’re still pretty far behind on that, compared to UCLA, San
Diego. To me it’s been a little disappointment in my own department that we
haven’t been able to recruit any Latin Americans to our faculty, because there
are a lot of good economists from Latin America, and while we had one once
as a visitor for one year, we’ve never been able to recruit, and that would be a
good thing because that would attract students from Latin America and so on.
We haven’t been successful at it.
Other faculty with interests in Latin America continue to pursue this objective,
as well as attracting more students from Latin America. Several study participants,
mostly faculty, commented that they are surprised how underrepresented USC is
regarding students from Latin America. They expressed a belief that Southern
California’s relatively close proximity to Central and South America should lead to a
greater number of international students from the region.
USC’s focus on Pacific Rim initiatives was a common subject of interest to most
interview subjects, and will be reviewed in more detail later in this chapter.
Internationalization of the Curriculum
Several participants were critical of USC’s progress toward actual
internationalization of the curriculum and research activities of the university. Most
of these comments contrasted curricular strength with what they perceived as USC’s
true focus: networking and connections abroad. As one mentioned:
Program staff member, study abroad: …we really have to look at what we
are talking about, in terms of strength. It’s not a curricular strength, because
159
Asia is not our curricular strength. I mean, you can look at the destination of
a number of different departments here, and look at the people who teach, we
don’t have…I mean, we have a number of faculty here who are from Asia,
and from that area. That doesn’t mean that they are experts in that area, and
just looking at the number of the quality faculty that have come and left the
institution in the past 15 years that are teaching elsewhere, shows that that’s
not a strength, in itself, so curricular, it’s not. There’s something else, there
is a different type of strength there.
Senior members of the faculty summarized the concern of many with similar
sentiments:
Faculty member, education: …there’s great intention to get out there and
have presence, but I think, unless you’ve got an intellectual premise as to
why you’re there and what the real reason and what your current advantage
is, I mean, that’s what’s going to really make it successful, I think.
Faculty member, education: And the people at the top here clearly don’t
understand what internationalization is all about. They seem to think that it
involves some of our people doing projects in other countries, and
researchers from other countries coming here. But internationalization also
involves doing research about the essence or nature of those other countries.
Adding to the concern expressed above, a professor expressed a general concern
about the lack of curricular focus to the internationalization initiative, commenting
on how the most active members of the community in pursuing this strategy are
university administrators:
Faculty member, art history: …how does that happen that the administrators
are more connected, in a way, when in fact, this is supposed to be a learning-
centered thing?
What is most striking is that very few respondents in this study spoke about
curricular issues at all, in either a positive or negative light. Most mentions of
curriculum were centered on new executive programs in fields such as business
administration and public administration, among others. A few participants
160
discussed their wish that greater emphasis would be placed on enhancing global
perspectives in the undergraduate curriculum, but these comments were few. For the
most part, starting with respondents’ definitions of internationalization and moving
through their commentary on the state of the strategic initiatives at USC, much
greater emphasis was placed on issues of student exchange, international
partnerships, and research. Of those who expressed interest in the curriculum, most
were faculty members. A potentially related topic that did receive some attention
was student learning and global awareness, but this goal was most often linked with
study abroad and international students, not international aspects of the curriculum.
One area of interest to some respondents concerning the curriculum was foreign
language study. Several participants expressed dismay at the perceived lack of
attention paid to foreign language programs, particularly in terms of the lack of
language requirements in several popular majors.
Program staff member, study abroad: I mean at the undergraduate level, you
know I think to have a really internationalized student body, I mean think
foreign language needs to be emphasized a lot more. Right now, there’s a
language requirement for College [of Letters, Arts and Sciences] students.
And, you know business students, music students, there is no foreign
language requirement.
Program staff member, study abroad: I think studying a foreign language
seems to be a basic element in becoming a more internationalized person in a
sense. There are all these majors that USC that don’t have a language
requirement and I find that very odd considering the push for
internationalization.
Mostly staff, and a few faculty, expressed concern about the state of foreign
language instruction at USC, while administrators did not seem concerned and the
strategic plans were mostly silent on this issue.
161
Internationalization of Research Activities
In terms of research, the reviews are clearly mixed. Several study participants
are directly involved in research of an international nature, and feel supported by the
institution in these endeavors. Some, however, related different experiences and
impressions during interviews. In some cases, faculty who are doing a great deal of
internationally-oriented research report doing so despite the lack of support from
their academic units. One such case is seen here:
Faculty member: I think the official policy includes internationalization as a
main emphasis, but it does not necessarily mean that every school within the
USC umbrella is following this principle. And some of the schools do not
like international activities. You may be aware of this…the [school name
deleted] is one of them. However, I think the reason some schools do not like
international activities may be the following. It could be, in terms of the
faculty composition, there are not many people familiar with international
research. Now that’s one. Probably another one is it’s much easier to get
research money from domestic sources than international sources. And many
people are content with doing domestic research—why pursue something
different? I think perhaps the upper administration has another idea. To be
one of the major research universities of the US, this university has to be
doing substantial international activities.
Some of the concern over the focus on research and curricular issues goes back
to common frustration with what is perceived as a market-oriented approach to
academic decision-making. Many comments by interview participants detailed a
sense that while the university has been consolidating resources and attention toward
a rather narrow geographic area and supporting curricular developments that meet
perceived market demands, what is still lacking at the institution is a broad global
perspective pervading all departments and schools, regardless of the field of study.
162
One participant’s comments, while at the extreme in terms of their critical nature,
portray this belief by some:
Program staff member, study abroad: And, currently this is not a research
institution, no matter how many times people try to say it. Research
institutions will provide monetary resources for underrepresented areas,
whether there are students to take the classes, or not. And, you don’t really
see that here, to a great extent. You know, going to the University of
Chicago and seeing students take Georgian language. And, having two
students in there in the year and knowing full well, that this is what helps
make an academic institution, is that you offer these little areas that nobody,
except maybe one in a million wanted to study or take. That’s what creates a
research institution.
Interestingly, faculty perceptions of support for international research appeared
to be loosely linked to the length of time they have been at the university. Newer
faculty (hired within the past five years) generally reported more optimism about the
tangible support available from internal sources for their projects of an international
nature. This may be due to the fact that they came to USC in large part due to the
international focus of the university (or their department) and are also not shy about
looking for sources of support. Faculty who have been with USC for longer more
often reported looking outside the university when seeking funding for their research
projects, and they expressed less confidence in their ability to find substantial
resources within the campus.
Criticism of Approaches Taken and Specific Initiatives Enacted
A variety of other criticisms of the institution’s progress in its
internationalization initiative focused on specific concerns, but with less frequency
or severity as those already presented. Some respondents stated their belief that the
163
rationales for internationalization were not necessarily appropriate, and that support
has been misplaced at times. An example of one such concern follows in a staff
member’s statement about the overall internationalization strategy:
Program staff member, study abroad: I see it as a marketing tool, I see it as a
PR and marketing tool, which could be good for the University, but I think
sometimes, the focus becomes a little bit lopsided. I think there could be
more focus, because I work with undergraduates, and sometimes I think there
could more focus on the undergraduate level, in internationalizing at the
undergraduate level. I see a lot of focus on things like the USC Asia
Conference. I think, sometimes, the focus gets skewed toward fundraising
and skewed toward marketing USC as a brand overseas, and a little bit less
focused on the more educational aspects of internationalization.
Another participant who felt that the “global presence” aspect of USC’s
internationalization strategy was going well, conversely stated that on the campus
itself, there is not yet an overarching sense of USC as an international community:
Central administrator: …one of the places that we’ve fallen short, it seems
to me, is integrating that global perspective into what we do here on campus.
You know, here we are with the largest number of international students in
any university in the country, at least last time I checked. If not, we’re one of
the two or three largest. And, of course, we do a lot of really good things.
Parkside has all these really great programs, and this sort of thing. But, when
you look at the student body as a whole, I don’t think that USC does a
particularly effective job of fully utilizing this great resource.
Some administrators candidly noted that even after more than a decade of
pursuit of the stated internationalization initiative as demonstrated by inclusion in the
strategic plans, more clear strategies and definitions of global presence and
internationalization are needed. The following two statements indicate some of this
concern:
Central administrator: I think that we haven’t, until recently, again, had a
real good international strategy. We kind of knew that we needed to have
international presence, but we still haven’t kind of thought through
164
strategically what that means and how to get there. And I think we need
some more work on that.
Central administrator: So, I think if we wanted to better understand what
our global presence is, to be more intentional about our use of university
resources, that we should definitely understand better what it is, actually, that
we’re doing.
Some of the specific initiatives noted as successes by some respondents (as
outlined previously) are also causes for concern among others. While many involved
in this study were only marginally aware of the Association of Pacific Rim
Universities, a few participants felt that this resource could be better utilized to
enhance USC’s connections around the Pacific Rim, not just at the executive level.
As one administrator mentioned:
Central administrator: But, what I haven’t seen happen here, and we pushed
on this a little, is to say, OK, here’s the list of APRU institutions. Each of
these…what are the very, very best programs in these institutions, and can we
be able to interact with a program in the institutions?
Despite examples of recent initiatives such as the tsunami outreach grants
mentioned previously, there exists a general perception that the university is more
concerned with promoting its brand name internationally and raising its prestige
around the world than having an influence on creating solutions to global problems.
That said, several participants did note that the language of the most recent strategic
plan does include substantial content of this nature. While some skepticism exists
about how this might be implemented, others are optimistic that tangible support will
be given to projects that include an international development focus. Commenting
on USC’s past experience in this area, on participant stated:
165
Program staff member, international student services: Well, I would say
with regard to development assistance contracts, now in part, that’s been due
to changes within the federal government. But I don’t think USC has been
aggressive in seeking opportunities to assist in the development of the
developing world. There’s been a lot of opportunity, I think, for assistance
programs in Eastern Europe, for example. Not as much as in the past,
perhaps, but I don’t think we’ve been real aggressive in that area.
Some on campus don’t believe that the Parkside International Residential
College’s mission has as of yet been fully realized, in comparison with “international
houses” that have existed for decades at some other U.S. universities.
Program staff member, study abroad: First and foremost it’s a residence,
where as what you need is just something that anyone can go to and have
programs to bring people in. Of course, I haven’t seen anything. Maybe they
have programs, but they sure don’t advertise it.
Program staff member, international student services: I think the dream was
a good one, but my understanding is that because of the way housing and
housing spaces work, that it was never going to be…it was always going to
be a small percentage of the residence with the international students, and the
rest would be domestic, because they needed the housing spaces for
freshmen. So, and I know that they have a resource library room, and they
have seminar space, but from my perspective, has it done a significant…has
it done anything significant, really, in increasing interactions? Not that I’ve
seen.
These comments are in contrast with the earlier noted success of the Parkside
International Residential College found in various official documents. This is an
example of a situation where the official line and the opinion of some members of
the community do not reach agreement.
The last area of criticism to be discussed arises from the somewhat frequent
comments made by interview participants who complain of a vast divide between the
rhetoric of internationalization and the reality in everyday life of the university.
There was also a great deal of concern about the perceived inconsistency of
166
internationalization among the various schools within the institution. Most of these
comments came from faculty participants, both senior faculty who have been at USC
for decades, and some newer faculty hired in the past five years.
Nearly all participants in the study placed a large portion of responsibility for
implementation of the internationalization strategy on the deans of each school. The
deans interviewed agreed with the assessment that their positions held much of the
influence in determining the course of the strategy’s implementation, in terms of
resource usage and program development. Among the comments on this issue was
the following response:
Faculty member, social sciences: Well, I’m not sure they’ve been doing such
a great job. I think there is an enormous gap between the discourse of
globalization, say, the office of USC university president, or the provost, and
the College and school deans…
Faculty with international research interests were widely varied in their
assessment of the support USC has provided in their activities. Those who were
critical often pointed to deans who were uninterested in international research and
programs for a variety of reasons. The example below is indicative of this frustration
felt by some:
Faculty member, education: I work in a school where the support and
encouragement for international studies is not very easy to detect, because
strangely they’ve been closing down the international programs. Not totally,
but they’ve really decreased the support for it. Within the school, it’s really
actively discouraged. Not explicitly, but it’s actively, overtly discouraged.
The program’s been taken apart. Within the institution at large, I’ve always
been aware of some support for it, but not so much.
167
Another faculty member commented on how a dean who has no personal
experience or interest in international research can make it difficult to do this kind of
research unless heavily supported from outside the institution.
Faculty member: I had one project for Senegal, in West Africa. This was a
small project. A contract was made through the regular process, but the dean
didn’t like it, he cancelled that project. I think the official reason was, well,
that the school was in the process of making a strategic plan for the school,
and everything has to be re-evaluated in light of the strategic plan, so for this
reason the center was closed, and was being reviewed.
Frustration with the inconsistent degree of internationalization among USC’s
schools is typified by this academic unit administrator:
Academic unit administrator, communication: We have a great music
school. We don’t do much international. Here, it’s a perfect program which
should be sending students overseas in great numbers, and they’ve never
really had the inspiration, the impetus, the encouragement, whatever it might
be to do more. So, you know, I think that’s institutionally what could
happen. And, you know, maybe they’ll have some start up funds to help
them do it…but something to encourage, push, cajole, I think, would be very
helpful, because at the moment, there are pockets of profound
internationalization here, and there’s lots of places I don’t think are doing
much.
Many interview participants were asked about the practical implications of
having a formal university strategic plan. While most agreed it was good to have
strong language on internationalization in the plan, many said that the document
itself never factored into decisions made at the departmental level about projects to
engage in and how to use resources. Again, these comments generally came from
faculty members. Two illustrative examples follow:
Faculty member, education: Well, I have not seen anyone in this school who
was not committed to internationalization before they came use the strategic
initiatives guidelines to guide their decisions in any way. There’s no teeth in
168
that document, for this school at least, because the real teeth are in the US
News and World Report rankings.
Faculty member, political science: And, there’s a lot of provincialism. I see
these vice provosts and all these traveling all over. I’m not sure what they’re
accomplishing. To be honest with you, right now, the obstacles to any kind
of authentic advances in internationalization are right here on the campus.
To summarize, perceived shortfalls in internationalization reported by study
participants fell into three categories. First, some criticized the approach taken by
the university, with its focus on establishing connections around the world
(especially in the Pacific Rim), and the associated belief that these efforts were made
at the expense (or at least neglect) of developing curricular strength of a global
nature. As noted, many in the administration would counter that it is exactly these
new connections that will allow USC to aggressively pursue collaborations and new
programs that will essentially redefine the nature of the twenty-first century
university. A second group of criticisms is leveled at the perceived slow progress in
a few key areas traditionally included in conceptualizations of internationalization,
including study abroad and getting the most possible benefit from having a large
international student population. And third, several participants were concerned with
uneven focus on internationalization between different units within the university,
and their perception that the rhetoric of internationalization espoused by the
university did not match the reality across the institution.
While not a direct criticism of USC’s approach to internationalization, around
half of the participants brought up concerns about how the administrative structure of
169
the university can at times pose challenges to fulfilling the internationalization
strategy. These comments will be discussed in the next section.
Management and Organizational Structure
Issues related to USC’s organizational structure and its effect on the pursuit of
the internationalization initiative were of great interest to many interview
participants. Likewise, several brought up thoughts concerning the mechanisms, or
lack thereof, in place to support and encourage a growth in international activities
across the university. A good number of these comments from participants focused
on the decentralized nature of university governance, and the perceived advantages
or disadvantages of this model.
On one side were many who extolled the virtues of decentralized management,
pointing to some advances in internationalization that could have only been made
through this approach. It should be noted that most of the comments in support of
the decentralized approach came from central administrators and a handful of
faculty. On the other side are those who take issue with the decentralized approach
and who identified several obstacles that this places in the way of successful
attainment of a more internationalized university. While individual participants from
all categories made comments of this sort, the most intense perception of a problem
with decentralization came from program staff, who often expressed frustration with
having a difficult time collaborating across academic and administrative units, or
170
even knowing what else was happening in other units as part of the
internationalization strategy.
Most comments which favored a decentralized approach argued that innovation
and creativity was made possible by ensuring that decision-making rests in the hands
of deans and individual academic units. Two comments from administrators support
this argument:
Central administrator: The decentralization of USC is one of its great
strengths. The encouragement of entrepreneurial behavior of our deans, and
in the school’s leading faculty members, is a huge strength. Is it difficult to
get coordination? Sure, but it’s not impossible, and so, there’s a number of
initiatives out of the provost’s office to try to increase coordination, or
increase cooperation, interdisciplinary cooperation on both domestic issues
and international issues or global issues.
Central administrator: We’re a pretty decentralized place, and so, what we
have is a lot of entrepreneurial behavior, a lot of experimentation. And, I
think that that’s a good thing, because, you know, we’re trying to do some
things that have never been done, and the more interesting experiments that
get set up, you know, the more likely it is to have some that take hold, and
then, you can have, if you’re lucky, you can have knowledge diffusion, and
then, that occurs other places.
This last comment brings up a prevalent concern that despite the desire for
different units within the university to benefit from each other’s experiences, very
little has been done to make sure this happens. Many of the participants in this study
have come to the realization that it will take more than luck to ensure that
information is shared in a meaningful way and that individual units are encouraged
to help each other in their international endeavors.
One administrator added that although many overseas partners are at first taken
aback by USC’s very decentralized way of operating, they eventually come to realize
171
that this structure allows for an easier path to establishing collaborations and
partnerships.
Central administrator: Sometimes, I’ve noticed institutions get frustrated
because they want to call up me, or call up the provost and say, “OK, we
want to have this deal, start this deal, I’m going to ask if you could call some
schools that you want to deal with.” We don’t do that. And so, in some
ways, it’s frustrating for some schools to deal with us. On the other hand,
those institutions are kind of figuring it out they can get things done very
quickly because they can deal directly with the school, and make an
agreement.
Another explained that the role of the administration should be to set the agenda
and enact structures to encourage internationalization, but not expect to control
which activities are ultimately implemented:
Central administrator: What USC is trying to do, is to figure out what the
central administration can do to facilitate that, and provide all the support and
encouragement and incentives necessary to make it happen, but also, to step
back and get out of the way when it is happening. …the idea there isn’t for
the central administration to micro manage that, but it is for there to be a
clearly articulated set of parameters, so that if a dean enters into a discussion
like that, they know from the beginning that here’s where USC draws the
line, and what we want is something like this, and not something like that.
And so, like everything, and the way everything at USC works, is by sort of
delineating the parameters of what’s acceptable, and then, providing
incentives for people to do that, and occasionally, disincentives for them not
to do it…
Academic unit administrators were in general concurrence with this viewpoint.
They clearly liked having the autonomy to pursue internationalization on their own
terms, especially considering that it might mean something different to each unit
depending on their fields of study, student make-up, and expertise of their faculty.
One dean stated:
Academic unit administrator, social work: I’ve been in other institutions that
rely on a central structure, and I think that’s useless. The central structures
172
end up being kind of places to sign exchange agreements and affiliation
agreements, and then, nobody ever does anything. I think the agreements that
we sign really mean something because the deans are committed to them, and
so, you develop these relationships the way you develop any other
relationships, such as I’ve met with presidents of universities, I’ve met with
presidents of countries. There are a lot of people who can help with the
initial content, but I think that USC does it exactly the right way.
While most staff members expressed frustration with USC’s decentralization
when carrying out their international exchange programs, one did bring up at least
one benefit of having so many units involved in the sponsorship of international
activities:
Program staff member, study abroad: So as much as sometimes I get fed up
with the fact that we’re spread out everywhere, we are spread out everywhere
so there are international offices all over the place. So there’s strength in
that. Students can’t really get too far around the campus without running into
some other office that’s dealing with something international.
This silver lining of decentralization was noted by others who had a difficult
time working with centralized structures when they did exist. In a few cases, people
actually claimed that USC was too centralized, and needed to allow individual units
more autonomy in design and implementation of international activities.
Commenting on the process for approval of new study abroad programs, one stated:
Program staff member, study abroad: …because it’s a bureaucracy, it tends
to move slow, a ship turns very slowly in that direction. So, you start seeing
plans being talked about, but by the time they’re implemented, they’ve been
watered down, to a certain extent, and may have lost their effectiveness, or by
the time they’re implemented, they may be outdated. The curriculum
approval of the school just drives me bonkers. I’ve never been in an
institution where it takes…you know, it’s not enough for the faculty of the
program and then, the chair of the program, and then, the school dean to sign
off on something, but then, it has to go to a centralized committee.
173
Most faculty interviewed were generally supportive of the decentralized
structure and its effect on internationalization. Other than a few exceptions, most did
not seem to expect tangible support from the central administration in terms of
financial resources for engagement in international teaching and research. While
some thought this would be helpful, others seem resigned to the fact that they were
responsible for securing their own support (often external), which would typically
come in greater amounts than the university would ever be able to offer. Signaling
contentment with the current administrative structure, one faculty member explained:
Faculty member, art history: I set my own agendas. I encourage whatever
international relationships I want. I consider myself lucky to have people
behind me so that whenever there are contracts to be made, which there
always are at universities, to make sure we don’t get hurt or hurt anybody in
the process. But, I think there’s a lot of freedom. The danger, of course, is
that we’re not going to get out full bang for the buck if everybody doesn’t
know what they’re doing, and I think that there’s some kind of trend there
that universities try to gather, to try to get some sense of what everyone’s
doing.
Most comments from participants that described the downsides of
decentralization were aimed at the difficulty in easily collaborating across units and
the perception that while many exciting international things may be taking place
across the university, it is very difficult to find out about them and benefit from
others’ experience. The following two statements are typical of many responses
from participants:
Program staff member, international student services: Well, I think I’m
frustrated with this as many central offices are about the lack of desire on the
part of the constituent academic units of the University to cooperate with the
center. They have the money to do it on their own and I think that has cost
the University, as a whole, money on occasion as they have gone out and
done their own thing. So, am I fully satisfied? No. No. We’ve chosen a
174
very decentralized approach. I think a most centralized approach may have
produced even more beneficial results. Certainly we can point to tremendous
growth in the number of international programs and activities on campus.
But it has been done largely in spite of this decentralization and lack of
coordination.
Academic unit administrator, engineering: I think the desire for
collaboration, I think we’re getting a lot better on collaboration than we used
to years ago, but I still think our model of, the tuition is mine, not yours. You
do your tuition, I do mine. Our tuition income model does have a tendency to
prevent as much collaboration as could happen.
Other staff echoed this sentiment, claiming that all too often individual programs
are working on similar initiatives without the benefit of sharing ideas. Rather than
seeking administrative restructuring within the university, most were more interested
in establishing some type of network or center that could act as a clearinghouse for
all things international.
Program staff member, study abroad: The fact that we’re so decentralized,
it’s actually really hard to keep track of who’s doing what and I think that
that means that a lot of people are reinventing the wheel and things are
maybe -- different offices, different program, different initiatives can be
moving faster and behaving and performing in a more dynamic way if there
was just a li ttle bit better communication.
While few administrators shared similar concerns regarding collaboration and
communication, one did acknowledge the need to improve in this area to get the
most out of the myriad international activities taking place across the university:
Central administrator: … we need to do a much better job in trying to
understand what it is we’re doing, and it’s to find and develop our internal
synergies between things that are happening in the same locations, or in
similar places, in order to make ourselves more effective. USC is a place of
individual initiative, and so, we have lots of things going on. And, we
recently tried to collect up some of this information. And, it was fascinating
to discover all the things that we were doing, that people didn’t realize that
other people were doing.
175
Most concerns about decentralization focused on the internal issues of
collaboration and communication across programs and units as noted above, but
some also indicated that USC’s structure causes some difficulties when establishing
partnerships leading to exchange of students internationally. On this topic, one staff
member stated:
Program staff member, study abroad: USC is very decentralized, and I think
foreign universities understand this, that if there’s an exchange agreement,
they want an exchange agreement where, you know, our student goes there
and studies in their equivalent of a language institute and studies language
and culture, but doesn’t have access to the full university. And they want
their students to come here and have access to the Cinema School, the
Marshall School of Business, and everything. And I don’t think they
understand how decentralized we are and how difficult it is to arrange for a
short-term visiting student to have access to all the different courses in the
school.
Responses from all categories of interview participants supported the contention
that internationalization was happening in vastly different ways, and in widely varied
levels of magnitude, in the different academic units within the university. Many
speculated that internationalization perhaps comes more naturally to certain schools
representing fields and disciplines that are international in nature already. Several
also noted that the interest and international experience of academic unit leaders
make a big difference in the amount of energy and resources directed toward this
element of the university’s strategic plan.
Central administrator: …it’s probably easiest for a business school to do
things. I’m not saying it’s easy, but easiest, relative to other schools that
have stakeholder groups that are more domestic-focused . And , depending on
personalities, some people are better at it than others.
176
Another administrator agreed, and admitted that not everyone is expected to get
on board and suddenly become more international in their work:
Central administrator: You know, there are some disciplines that very much
lend themselves to this, and others that don’t. And, it’s not…there’s never
been an indication that every single faculty member sort of sees a need to
rethink what they do, in terms of their teaching and research in this light.
As mentioned previously, the position of dean was seen by many within the
university as the crucial one for the ultimate success or failure of USC’s push toward
becoming a university with greater global presence. One administrator portrays the
current situation in this way:
Central administrator: …there are three or four deans that are really
interested in this and they’re pushing it. …about four deans, maybe more,
that are kind of constantly on airplanes going places, and taking programs a
new way. We have some deans who just don’t, for whatever reason, don’t
interact. It may not be the most important thing in their particular discipline.
A few staff members agreed, with one stating that he has observed the provost
and his staff trying very hard to get all of the deans onboard and committed to the
idea of internationalization, but that it is still very uneven across the university.
Faculty who reported not receiving support or encouragement for international
activities often pointed toward uninterested deans as one of the large obstacles to
enhancing internationalization in their areas.
Faculty member, public administration: I think USC is a kind of collection
of kingdoms, kingdoms being schools, and the deans can make their own
decisions as to what a professor can do or cannot do. So I think in this case,
the dean of the school is not very much interested in international activity, at
least not any of the kind of activities I was doing. So I think there is not a
strong relationship between what the people at the top decide, and what all
the kings are deciding.
177
Faculty member, education: What it comes down to, our dean from the
Provost’s Office has a set of priorities, and they negotiate that, and I’m
willing to bet that even today, there’s very little emphasis in those
conversations and in the plans about what a unit like the School of Education
would do, or should do, or might do, or should stop doing, in international
education. I just don’t think I see it.
A faculty member in a professional school noted that one constraint on pursuing
new international initiatives and collaborating across academic boundaries to do so,
is the constant pressure on deans to keep an eye on budgetary considerations:
Faculty member, medicine: Deans are trying to do a responsible job, and the
first thing that they’re asked to do is balance their budgets, you know, and
that means increasing revenues as much as possible. And, that is the big
obstacle. There has been discussion of a matrix organizational system,
schools cross-cut by institutes at centers, that are interdisciplinary, and that
people would have their appointments…they would be appointed, everybody
as a faculty person, would be appointed in the school, as they are, but
generally, a substantial proportion of their salary, and I would say between
30% and 70%, would be supported by the institute.
This brings up issues of resource allocation and how deans are instrumental in
guiding this process. The general perception is that a supportive dean, interested in
developing new global programs and activities such as international research,
exchange programs, and others, will make resources available to those who are able
to carry out such activities. However, as one dean pointed out, without an infusion
of new money from the center, or from new revenue sources, these funds must be
redirected from existing priorities.
Academic unit administrator, social work: I think with any of these
fundamental changes in the way a program, academic unit is operating, a
faculty member can’t lead that. The provost can’t make it happen. So, you
have to recruit deans who come because they say, “I noticed you have a
global outreach, and I’ve been working in China for the past 10 years,” and
my work would fit well with that. You know, it has to be…because, it really
requires a conscious shift of resources from things that are very comfortable
178
to do, such as, you know, spending money on advice, local advisory groups,
and courting your alums, and doing all the things that are…you, literally, are
shifting money away from some important internal and domestic purposes.
…and, there’s no other way except to reallocate, because the growth in our
school budgets, you know, we don’t have that much growth.
One staff member responsible for various international programs reported a high
degree of support for her programs from a dean who is very interested personally in
internationalization:
Program staff member, study abroad: He’s a very internationally focused
type of person, …and he’s a big supporter of international activities, and he’s
been traveling internationally himself a lot.. And, so, in resources, I feel that
we actually, from my experience, we don’t have difficulties getting resources
within the school.
Considering the consensus that different schools at USC have been widely
varied in their involvement in international activities of any kind, central
administrators and academic unit administrators were asked what types of incentives
they have instituted to encourage more work toward this strategic initiative.
Interestingly central administrators stated that incentive structures were very
important, although they varied in opinions as to whether effective incentives had yet
been designed to spur internationalization. Two related but contrasting statements
follow:
Central administrator: But, I think, you know, incentive systems are really
critical, and I think that something that USC is doing is creating incentives
through faculty…incentives for faculty to do things that support the
internationalization effort.
Central administrator: Well, we have to have some incentive. We have
some reason why you want to play and go through and do that work, and I
think that’s probably our problem, that we haven’t yet developed the
incentive strategy to have people to do the work.
179
The contrasting views expressed here are another indication that the upper
management of the institution still wrestles with question of how to best go about
encouraging individual schools to carry out the internationalization strategy. As seen
here, they are, not surprisingly, struggling with the difficult issue of what types of
incentives would be most effective. Deans and other academic unit administrators,
on the other hand, typically expressed little interest in offering special incentives to
internationalize teaching and research activities.
Academic unit administrator, communication: No formal incentives, but you
know, we haven’t needed them, I mean, faculty, first of all, our faculty, are
by nature pretty international, and with a couple of exceptions, most of our
faculty are on the forefront of developments that are happening in their field.
Academic unit administrator, communication: …I don’t have something
where I require it. I don’t have a thing where I give a special bonus, because
it’s so much a natural part of this interest. So, you know, we try to make that
a natural part of the school, but I’d much rather see it go naturally because
internationally, it’s so much a part of our world here, rather than be…I don’t
think we have to create a special incentive for it, and I don’t think we need to
make it required.
Like any new programs, most international educational activities require
financial resources to be initiated and sustained. These programs are often more
expensive to carry out than a similar project might cost if done in a domestic setting,
for obvious reasons. While admitting that large sums of money are not typically
made available for new initiatives that fall under the umbrella of the
internationalization strategy, several interview participants reported being quite
satisfied with support that has come from the central administration or their
academic unit leaders. The first example below refers to the substantial support
behind the development of USC’s five international offices:
180
Program staff member, international student services: Well, I think the
University centrally has put a lot of money into the overseas offices, into the
staffing of those offices, and the training of the people that are staffed there.
Are we getting maximum value across the University? No. I think some
units take full advantage of it, while others do not. That’s always the way it’s
going to be, but the University has made a significant commitment to the
overseas offices.
A program staff member in an academic school noted that support for her office
and programs has risen steadily throughout the period of USC’s formalized
commitment to internationalization:
Program staff member, study abroad: I don’t feel like we’re under-
supported, at least in the immediate -- I mean we’ve seen a real increase in
some of our budget areas and so I don’t feel like our school is trying to really
shortchange us. And I would really disagree with anyone who represented it
that way. Maybe some people would, because I think that’s sort of the
natural tendency to grumble about that, but I actually don’t think that’s the
case.
Those in the role of academic unit administrator often had different perspectives,
since they are in a position of shifting resources around rather than appealing to the
center for more support. One summarized a common viewpoint for academic unit
leaders:
Academic unit administrator, communication: I think you get verbal support,
I think you get, “Ata boy, ata girl, kind of support,” but I don’t think you get
any material support, none. In part, the structure of the way the revenue
budgeting is worked on campus, there’s very little money at the center to
support these kinds of activities, and so, the Deans have to decide that they
see them as worthwhile. And, we don’t make any money, in fact, we
probably lose money on all of our international programs by shipping tuition
revenues overseas, and then, we have to carry administrative costs to it, as
well.
Faculty were mixed in their impressions of the amount of support available from
university sources for international activities. Some stated that all of their support
181
came from outside funding agencies, despite attempts to gain funding from various
USC sources. Others seemed satisfied with the funding they have been able to
procure internally, while at the same time admitting that major support often came
from other agencies that promote international work of various kinds.
Faculty member, art history: …of course, part of our job is to identify our
resources, you know, and they’re findable, but I also find that the university
development people and people in our unit especially, have been very good
about some of the ones that the university has, either university resources or
government resources, or kind of a combination, so I feel that I’m very
supported.
Faculty member, social work: …you have an international component to
your research, if you have an interdisciplinary or a trans-disciplinary
approach to your research, I think those are things that because they are
imbedded in strategic plan, they are looked upon favorably for university
funding, as well as school funding.
Faculty member, medicine: I don’t believe there’s been any financial support
from USC, in this activity, which stands in contrast, let’s say, to the
Australian Universities… I don’t think people do get much central support.
But, maybe it’s just the way things are financed here, it doesn’t happen.
The prevailing view on resources was that very little exists internally to support
individual faculty work on a global scale. This is not unlike the situation at most
other colleges and universities that include internationalization in their mission and
strategic plan. While some provide start-up funds to get projects off the ground,
faculty area typically expected to identify the bulk of their support from sources
outside the institution, including foundations, governmental agencies, corporations,
and other funding sources.
A final issue related to implementation of the strategic plan had to do with the
actual dissemination of the plan itself among the members of the university
182
community. As a guiding document, the university’s strategic plan is well-known
and used by some, and virtually ignored by others. Not surprisingly, all central
administrators and most academic unit administrators reported being very familiar
with the document itself, and claimed to refer to it often in the course of their work.
At the staff and faculty level, however, experiences varied among participants
interviewed. As the following statements indicate, program staff were generally
more likely to report familiarity with the strategic plan and its use on a regular basis
than were faculty:
Program staff member, study abroad: We look at the strategic plan of the
university, we do, and see if it fits with our own strategic plan, and where our
alumni are, and where our contacts are, and what the interest is. Yeah, so, we
kind of use it as part of everything else that we have to take into
consideration.
Program staff member, ESL language program: I am certainly more aware
of the strategic initiative, and the mission statement and the documents
because it is well distributed here than I was in any other place. I mean,
nothing like that ever appeared in my e-mails at [previous institution name
deleted] for example.
Faculty member, art history: I think it’s rather insignificant at the faculty
level. I think if I didn’t bring it up at faculty meetings, the strategic plan and
the fact that, you know, this might be happening, or that the provost and
president are thinking this or that way, I don’t think that it would ever be
brought up.
In conclusion, the views expressed regarding USC’s organizational structure and
its effect on internationalization are not surprising given the decentralized nature of
university governance. As noted previously, this issue was acknowledged as a
challenge in one of USC’s strategic plans. In some sense this challenge reinforces
the importance of making key hires in positions of influence, not the least of which
183
are deans, in order to advance the strategic initiatives of the university. The
organizational structure of the university is not likely to change anytime soon, and
there is no real indication that a different structure would make progress toward
meeting the internationalization objectives easier in any case. Instead, the pockets of
excellence in internationalization are likely to continue to exist, and it will be up to
others to learn from these experiences in order to inform their own forays into
internationalization. It may be the case also, as the responses here suggest, that
certain units within the university will be allowed to direct their strongest focus to
other aspects of USC’s strategic plan, and leave the bulk of activity related to
internationalization to others.
Marketization and Competition
Institutions of higher education are often engaged in competition of various
types, including competition for the best students and faculty, competition for
research funding, and for reputational rankings from a variety of sources. USC is
certainly no different, especially considering the ongoing ascent of the university in
national rankings and the emphasis being placed on increasing the national, and
global, prestige of the institution. It is apparent from the comments of interview
participants that the strategic initiative to expand USC’s global reach is viewed as
closely tied to the goal of increasing the university’s overall profile and standing
among its competitors.
184
The university is engaged in a process of re-defining who its competitors are.
The shift in this area can be seen in three stages. First, up until the 1980s, USC’s
competition was primarily seen as coming from its closest institutional neighbors.
As one administrator points out:
Central administrator: USC’s competition two decades ago was almost
entirely regional. You know, the competition was the UC’s and other private
research universities in California, in particular, but on the West Coast, you
know, and because of the great growth and the indicators, especially
undergraduate student quality and the sort of grown notoriety of the school
under the president’s and provost’s leadership, the schools against which we
compete have expanded to a national scale. We now compete with NYU.
We have a lot of students who apply to both us and them, and get admitted to
us and NYU, and the question is who is going to yield that student?
Even within the regional setting, USC has its sites set on the highest ranked
institutions. Relating this to the internationalization objectives, another administrator
noted that USC particularly is keen on competing with Stanford and UC Berkeley to
draw the best international students to its academic programs.
Within individual schools and disciplines, many administrators see
internationalization as a key way to keep up with, or surpass, similar institutions
nationwide. As one suggested:
Academic unit administrator, law: It’s important for us to have this joint
degree and exchange or study abroad programs, because…all of the other
top law schools have them, and so, even if you weren’t concerned with
internationalization, you should be because you need to be competitive,
because these students are looking at what you have to offer.
While many see USC’s competition expanding from a regional to national scale,
others argue that this is already changing again and that the university is becoming
more cognizant of competition coming from other institutions around the world.
185
One administrator explained how USC is looking to traditional US competitors for
international students, such as the U.K., Canada, and Australia, and also emerging
competition from universities in the Pacific Rim societies that USC has targeted for
internationalization:
Central administrator: In our particular business, that means that universities
in Canada and Australia, and England, have become stronger competitors,
just English-speaking countries. They have good universities, and they’re
stronger competitors, and they recognize this, and they openly make a public
relations and marketing pitch, “Come here, it’s easier than going there. Your
chance of getting your visa here’s 100%, your chance of getting it there is
25%.” And so, we see increased competition coming from these other places,
but also, increased competition from…probably, increased competition from
the best Chinese universities, or the best Japanese universities, that some of
their best students will stay home. I don’t really think that affects us, at least
in the next 15 or 20 years so much. I think the best of the best will still want
to go out, and…but, they may go to Canada, or Australia, or England, rather
than here. But, I think they want to mix with an international student body,
not just stay at home. And, we’re only looking for the best of the best.
We’re not looking for the second tier, third tier students. I think the
strengthening of Chinese universities will hurt some of the second tier or
third tier institutions much more than us.
Another reiterated a similar viewpoint, focusing attention specifically on the
growing higher education system in China, which seems to be of some concern to
USC’s administration:
Central administrator: China is opening a university a day. It’s becoming so
big, there’s so much development taking place there, that there’s just huge
competition. Some stuff that’s going on in the EU, in terms of trying to
create a common mark of education is going to be an interesting
development, such as allowing students to much more easily transfer among
institutions in the EU. So, all that is creating competition for faculty and
students, and programs.
At least one staff member, however, disagreed that serious competition is
coming from institutions in the areas mentioned here:
186
Program staff member, international student services: The competition from
overseas schools, the UK, Australia, Canada, I don’t think students that we
enroll really consider those schools very often. I think the students that come
to USC from overseas really have their hearts set on coming to Los Angeles,
Southern California, USC for the programs that are here.
One administrator brought up an important point about the manner in which
USC attempts to sell itself to the international student market. The following
comment indicates a specific strategy used to promote the university while
distancing it from the issues that are problematic for students coming to the US,
including visa difficulties and the perception that US policies in the wake of
September 11, 2001 have become unfriendly toward foreigners, including university
students:
Central administrator: …we’re actually having to create an institutional
image separate from that of our country, as opposed to these [universities in]
other countries.
The point here is that perceptions of the United States as an unfriendly destination
for university study, brought about by recently enacted strict immigration policies,
can be an obstacle to enrolling the best students from around the world. Whereas in
some countries universities can rely in part on the good will generated by their
national governments, and the positive impression held by most people of the climate
for education, universities in the U.S. must consider ways to market their product to
potential students despite an existing negative perception.
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks’ effects on US higher education,
including USC, were mentioned by several participants as a challenge to
internationalization. Administrators, staff and faculty all discussed how the
187
aftermath of these attacks has brought uncertainty to the long-term growth and
development of international programs of various types. As summarized by one
administrator:
Central administrator: …post 9/11, the world is different. The particular
strategy the American government has taken to combat terrorism and
preemptively change regimes, and to restrict the personal liberties of people
inside the United States by searches and by other stuff, has changed the
world, and it’s increased the barriers to moving goods, services and people
around the world. In fact, some people just can’t come here, anymore.
Others mentioned the risks involved in placing a large emphasis on international
students and international programs. The concern here appeared to be most strongly
linked to the large number of international students at USC, and that because of this,
the institution is at a greater risk than some other US institutions of feeling the
negative effects of US policies that create obstacles to international mobility.
Central administrator: The international environment’s much more
uncertain today than it was before 9/11. I mean, 9/11 changed the whole
thing, and so, whether we’ll kind of ease that flow of information and flow of
students, and move faculty across boundaries, is a much more difficult
question now than it was four years ago, so we just have to worry about that.
And, there’s the risk that we could have another terrorist attack maybe, and
the borders could get shut tighter, and we want to have international students,
and we want to be able to interact with more sets of countries. I mean, that’s
a risk, and you can’t control that. And, you can change the nature overnight
of international education. 9/11 did, and you can imagine something that
might change it in a different direction. So, that’s always a risk.
Faculty member, art history: …there’s this thing about security, and this
thing about, in a way keeping…and, it’s not just us, God knows. This is an
American problem which we might suffer more from because we’ve
identified ourselves so strongly with the international student body, but I
want to tell you, we are in for trouble if this thing goes a lot further.
The organizational flexibility alluded to in the previous section is seen by many
as a key competitive advantage for USC when it comes to development of new and
188
innovative partnerships across national boundaries. As a private institution, USC is
not under the same regulatory constraints as many competitors, allowing for a greater
ability to be creative in its pursuit of alliances worldwide.
Central administrator: …easily a third, and maybe more than that, of our
principle domestic competitors are state universities. They don’t have the
kind of flexibility we do, to enter into agreements with foreign governments
for universities in foreign countries. Almost all leading universities outside
of the United States, are public universities. I mean, there are almost no
exceptions to that. And so, they’re hamstrung in a way that we aren’t, in
terms of forging these alliances, because they have to deal with state
governments and legislatures, and the rest of it.
While competition with public institutions might offer some advantages for USC
in regard to international alliances, others identified disadvantages in terms of
recruitment of foreign students:
Program staff member, international student services: While USC has
enrolled the largest number of international students for the past three or four
years, the largest number in the country, we have seen a shift in our
competition. Our main competitors used to be other major urban, private,
research universities, specifically NYU, Columbia, and Boston University.
Now, we’re seeing that the competition is coming from the public sector:
University of Texas, Purdue University, large public institutions are enrolling
large numbers of international students as well. And obviously they have
cost advantages, which we didn’t have. We have a location advantage,
perhaps.
Despite serious perceived competition from within and outside the US, many at
USC believe that in terms of its internationalization initiatives, USC is outpacing
most other institutions. In this regard, many point to some of the successes and
attainments presented previously, including the establishment of USC’s international
offices. This viewpoint was held almost exclusively by central administrators,
189
however, while others see USC as more in the mainstream of what US universities
are doing overseas currently.
Central administrator: One thing I’ve spent a lot of time looking at is
competition for the international offices, and I may be seeing some of the
first signs of that in Hong Kong now. But, on a whole, nobody is doing the
kinds of things that we’ve been doing internationally. And so, in many ways,
we’re really out leading the curve, rather than following and seeking others.
Central administrator: …you don’t see that many of the other top 10 or 15
universities doing what we’re doing, opening programs abroad, or trying to
figure out how to more closely integrate what we’re doing abroad.
The tendency to compare the institution to others ranked highly is a natural one,
and takes place in all areas of the university’s involvement, not just
internationalization. Several of the respondents spoke of various ranking systems for
universities, including those produced by such media organizations as US News and
World Report. Some noted that the institution is beginning to look at other non-
domestic ranking systems as well to ensure that USC is receiving a positive
evaluation by the sources that people look to first.
An interesting viewpoint was presented by one administrator, who explained
that USC has a specific strategy to join the elite ranks of world universities by
focusing directly on increasing its global presence. This perspective assumes that in
a short time, national rankings will be less important that global opinions about
higher education institutions, and that a unique opportunity exists at this time to
make significant headway in terms of worldwide perceptions. His view was that
rather than focus efforts on trying to inch up the rankings among other top U.S.
universities, USC can ensure elite status on a global scale by establishing a presence
190
internationally and joining the ranks of the most prestigious universities across the
globe.
In some academic units, participants stated that since rankings for their
field/discipline do not consider international activities specifically when rating
programs, USC’s internationalization strategy is not considered a key driving force
in the planning and decision-making process for the unit. As one faculty member
explained:
Faculty member, education: Well, the university, like any other complex
organization, is not totally integrated. So on one hand it has its strategic
initiative as a way of climbing up the ladder, but on the other hand measures
of where they are on the ladder do not always include internationalization.
For example, schools of education, there’s no measure of internationalization.
Therefore this school is not going to do it, until it’s included in the
measurement of what makes us successful. So US News and World Report
does not rate education schools on their internationalization, so this school
will not do it. It’s as simple as that.
University rankings and prestige play a part in many practical decisions made in
implementing the internationalization strategy. Among the primary endeavors that
various academic units are pursuing in the international arena are linkages and
partnerships with organizations abroad, including other higher education institutions.
Some participants spoke of the importance of university rankings when planning for
such international partnerships. As USC raises its institutional profile and prestige,
both nationally and internationally, there appears to be a concerted effort to partner
with the most prestigious international universities. Part of the impetus for this
strategy is to raise USC’s profile in other countries by linking with the well-
respected institutions, thereby affording a similar level of respect for USC. At the
191
same time, USC runs a risk of hurting its international reputation by affiliating with
less revered higher education institutions.
Central administrator: Well, we don’t want to, necessarily, partner with
every school, and we want to deal with the elite schools of the region.
Academic unit administrator, engineering: We looked into the academic
reputation of the institutions, you know, we’re up here and they were like
barely coming up from the bottom. And, we found out, nope, we do not want
to do it, so we had to be very careful…it sounded great, they were willing to
say, “We’ll give you two million dollars to do this, to work with us.” Well,
we looked into it, we said, as we started exploring it, “No.” So, we do have
to be careful with that, and so, we’re only going forward. I mean, I get
requests all the time forwarded to me from an institution in Indonesia, an
institution in Southeast Asia, “We want to partner with you,” and we’re
getting those requests more and more at USC and our school but you do have
to be careful.
An interesting angle on institutional and academic program rankings was offered
by a faculty member who noted that the high number of foreign students in a
particular program was actually a detriment to better rankings in the US. Although
this professor is very supportive of, and involved in, international activities, the
following statement demonstrates a dilemma that confronts some departments:
Faculty member, social sciences: Now, interestingly, we have, I think, too
many foreign students in our doctoral program, and I don’t like that. They’re
good. I don’t like that, though, because most of them want to go home, and
the way that my department is going to improve its profile and its ranking, is
to train people and place them in the U.S. market.
Money Matters: Financial Implications of Internationalization
Financial aspects of internationalization were of more interest to central
administrators and academic unit administrators than to other participants,
understandably so given their responsibility for allocating funding among many
192
competing interests and needs. One described how the strategic plan, while setting
out broad academic objectives for the institution, also pays attention to revenue
development, including that from international programs:
Central administrator: As a strategic plan developed, one of the things that
we recognized as an institution is that we’re not going to be able to
accomplish what we want on the resource base we have. But, if you look at
our resources in terms of how it stacks up against our peer group, we’re much
lower in a lot of the dimensions of the resources we have available. So part
of what’s driving the strategic plan is we need to create a framework that’s
going to help us drive new revenue for us. And, part of what’s going to drive
new revenue for us when we think about students is finding ways to come to
them [with offshore programs]. So there’s a connection there [with
internationalization]; it’s still a slice of the same thing.
The establishment of study abroad programs and offshore educational ventures
both have strong financial implications for the university, in some cases negative
ones. One administrator surmised that the lack of a strong institutional push for
study abroad by undergraduate students may in large part be due to fiscal concerns:
Central administrator: …my impression is that those things…those were
decisions that were made, based on revenue, you know? Right now, because
we don’t have our own programs, when a student studies abroad, we lose that
revenue.
Financial implications are not limited to just study abroad programs. Another
administrator, commenting on the rationale for experimenting with new offshore
programs on a limited basis, noted that decisions about which particular schools and
academic programs should try offshore projects depends on whether or not a viable
market exists for the intended program. Here the emphasis is clearly on seeking
potential sources of revenue rather than a concern for international development.
193
Central administrator: …[offshore education programs] expand the revenue
space, whether it be teaching programs, or raising money, or facilities, or
executive programs.
Taking a contrary view, one academic unit administrator claimed that financial
return is only one of many motivators for such new innovations:
Academic unit administrator, communication: And so, while we might,
like any other unit, be drawn to other programs if there’s more possibility
for financial return than not, we always try to keep in mind that we’re first
and foremost, about teaching and research, and if there isn’t an intellectual
payoff, then we were skeptical that it’s worth taking our faculty away from
where they should be spending their time.
The prevailing view regarding setting up offshore academic programs was that
first and foremost they must be academically valuable programs. Most study
participants, however, acknowledged that the choice of location, fields of study, and
target population, are very much subject to financial considerations. More than just
meeting a recognized need for a specific program of study elsewhere in the world,
the emphasis appears to be on identifying demand for such programs by those who
are able to pay for the education. This appears to be one reason that executive-style
courses for professionals are among the most likely types of offshore programs to be
implemented or considered.
As noted earlier, enrollment of foreign students has large financial implications
for US universities, and USC clearly recognizes this fact. Many interview
participants agreed that a strong motivation recruiting and enrolling large numbers of
international students is to increase tuition revenue, since these students are not
eligible for US federal financial aid. Common statements included the following
example:
194
Program staff member, student affairs: The fact that the majority of the
foreign students attending USC are in masters programs and these are,
relatively speaking, low cost educational programs and there isn’t any
financial assistance for students in Masters Programs, means that it generates
a lot of money for the university.
Even the recent broadening of USC’s outreach into Latin America is seen by
some as an opportunity to tap new markets that would bring financial benefit to the
university.
Faculty member, social science: I think that, you know, there’s a lot of, shall
we say, disposable income in Mexico. You’re either really rich, or you’re
not, right? So, there’s a lot of students that we could be attracting, and I think
it could be a very dynamic exchange for USC that, thus far, we haven’t
engaged in.
Further explaining the rationale and strategy for the opening of a new
international office in Mexico City, USC’s first such operation outside of Asia, an
administrator commented:
Central administrator: We had strong connections in Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Japan, and in Indonesia, before we created those offices. Our intention was,
the Mexico City office is a bit different. We have fewer than 100 Mexican
students here. We don’t have many research programs in Mexico. So, what
we’re trying to do is, we’re trying to use the office as a way to break into a
market, which is different than accelerating your presence within a market
where you already have one, and expanding your presence.
The same person went on to explain how the office in Mexico City will have a
different focus that those in other locations:
Central administrator: And so, we’ve got a few strategies that we’re going
to try and think about how to penetrate the market, both for students, and
then, for research and teaching opportunities. And, the approach I would say
to you that we’ve taken in our other offices, is an entry point to commerce,
and business. And the office directors are IBEAR graduates, and some of
their families have been involved in commerce and stuff in those countries.
Our entry point in Mexico is through culture, rather than being an IBEAR
graduate, or a business graduate, our new office director is a cinema graduate.
195
When questioned about USC’s interest in attracting international students from
less wealthy countries, or from families with less financial resources, the following
responses came from administrators:
Central administrator: … there are important subjects that should be both
studied and taught, but the students in these subjects don’t have the money to
come here. So, we should either go there, or we should provide scholarships.
It’s a great idea, find a donor. There are a lot of countries, and with
income…there’s a lot of countries that are poor…and, within countries that
are wealthy, there are a lot of poor people, and why shouldn’t we be helping
them? Why shouldn’t we be providing services to them?
Central administrator: Well, I mean, we are not a foreign aid institution, and
we are not a state university that might have a mandate to do that, so unless a
donor is to say, “I would really like a serious program of recruiting the best
and brightest African students in the world, or the best and brightest Latin
American students, regardless of income,” they just don’t have the money,
unless you have a model saying we’re going to tax all the students who are
here or full pay to set up a scholarship fund for these things, and that’s not
going to go.
While USC would certainly welcome some kind of external funding from
individual donors, foundations or governmental agencies to encourage recruitment of
international students from widely varying financial backgrounds, this does not seem
to be a task that is viewed as fiscally feasible or responsible at the present time.
The motivation to pursue all types of international activities within the
university was to some a matter of responding to shifting global markets in
commerce, human resources, and culture. As one administrator from a professional
school noted, commenting in the establishment of international partnerships:
Academic unit administrator, engineering: For us it also has to do with the
U.S. economy, where Intel’s not doing as well as they were, for example.
Intel’s not doing well here; Intel’s putting a facility in Beijing. How can we
196
work with them over there? We have to shift our focus, based on what’s
happening in the rest of the world.
Responding to a question about why USC has made internationalization a key
strategic initiative, one participant answered as follows:
Program staff member, ESL language program: China--everybody wants a
piece of that market…He’s [university president] building on our really, I’d
say, sizeable reputation in the Pacific Rim, and exploiting those contacts…I
mean that in a positive way…to make sure that that market doesn’t slip
through our fingers, as it may slip through the fingers of the administration,
in general, I mean, the national administration. We are at a kind of a crucial
point right now. I see, maybe, 35 more years of U.S. language and cultural
dominance.
While not everyone agreed that the English language was doomed to second-tier
status in the near future, there was a consensus that USC’s attempt to enhance it’s
global reach, like similar efforts at other US universities, was inevitable.
Faculty member, education: …just as corporations have grown, governments
and universities have also flowed into the market economy, too, for better or
worse. You could say kicking and screaming, but the point is, that’s where
it’s headed, and USC, I think, is very much in that wavelength. I think the
new provost, I wouldn’t think of it as internationalist vs. local, I think that
doesn’t capture anything, but I think the fact that he is into what we call tech
transfer, and into inter-relationships between different kinds of institutions on
an economic basis, I think that’s where we’re going to see much more, and
again, for better or worse.
The conclusion drawn from participant responses is that USC’s push to
internationalize is inextricably linked to issues of marketization and competition.
From the statements made in the three strategic plans under review, to the
acknowledged role that rankings and prestige play in decision-making at various
levels, there is a clear link between the strategic initiative now referred to as
197
expanding the university’s global reach and USC’s continued rise in institutional
rankings domestically and abroad.
While some participants expressed frustration about their perception that much
of the internationalization strategy is driven by market-oriented concerns (as opposed
to academic rationales), for the most part respondents were just content that
internationalization was among USC’s primary strategic initiatives.
At the outset of this paper it was mentioned that many colleges and universities
have been increasing their international involvements in recent years. This adds to
an already competitive higher education environment as institutions bring their
educational programs to newly emerging markets worldwide. Nowhere is this
competition more intense than in Asia, the region of most interest to USC thus far.
Geographic Focus on the Pacific Rim
In the period leading up to the creation of the 1994 strategic plan, USC’s leaders
assessed the university’s existing strengths and determined that its strongest potential
connections by far were located in the Pacific Rim region, including the large
number of international alumni residing in Asia. At the same time, it was realized
that resources could not be invested in new programs all over the globe. As a result,
the 1994 plan and subsequent documents have included a specific focus on the
Pacific Rim area for USC’s internationalization initiatives.
Part of the reasoning for choosing to focus on the Pacific Rim relates to
perceived geographic proximity. As one administrator noted, commenting on the
198
student recruitment implications, USC does enroll students from Europe and other
world regions, but its U.S. west coast location makes it an especially attractive
location for students from Asia.
Another administrator added some other related rationales centered on USC’s
many long-standing connections in Asia:
Central administrator: …it’s my belief that strategy is about choosing. I
mean, you can’t do everything, you can’t be the best at everything. You have
to decide what you’re going to do, and pursue that, and pursue it well. And, I
think that there’s a logic, because of our location in Los Angeles, because of
the kinds of students that we’ve recruited for a number of years. There’s a
logic that’s focusing on the Pacific Rim because of the excitement of the
Pacific Rim in the 21
st
Century, because of the explosive growth in Asia.
As noted earlier, while the language of the strategic plans, especially the 2004
version, has begun to evolve toward a more global approach, there is still an
intention to keep a major part of the focus on the Pacific Rim. While some
participants complained that this unduly limits activities in other parts of the world,
the top leadership of the university was unified in their belief that the university
needs to develop preeminence in this one region in order to achieve the level of
excellence desired in its various programs and partnerships.
Central administrator: I look at my colleagues in other institutions across
the country, and they have this concept of the whole world is their oyster.
They want to encompass the whole world. And, they just find that they can’t
do it. And, you know, they don’t develop the deep expertise, and they’re not
able to capitalize on particular resources.
Many study participants, not just central administrators, agreed that if it is done
right, the Pacific Rim emphasis could help USC to gain prestige within the rapidly
growing markets of Asia, and to some extent Latin America.
199
Academic unit administrator, social work: …the exchange programs, the
summer study abroad, all that stuff, the curriculum that we read, everything is
Euro-centric. And so, I think a place where we show leadership most, is by
looking to Asia and the Pacific Rim countries in starting to change the nature
of the connections and relationships that, historically, have been the case in
this country.
While USC has opened international offices in several Asian countries plus
Mexico City, the one country that many at the university are directing their attention
to is China. Faculty in several schools have engaged in collaborations with Chinese
counterparts, and a few major projects have been developed in recent years,
including research programs focused on public health, major collaborations in social
work, and an offshore degree program in Shanghai for MBA students, among others.
Academic unit administrator, business: …because China’s a booming
country. Everybody wants to be part of their development…so, we chose
that as our own place to be.
A common viewpoint emerged about how USC’s Pacific Rim focus relates to
the perception of growing worldwide competition in higher education. Many
participants felt that this region was chosen for attention because it is a less exploited
market for students and programs than other parts of the world. While a number of
U.S. institutions have been actively involved in Asia for some time, the sheer size of
the market in countries like China and India are what is driving this intensified focus
on the region.
Central administrator: It’s more problematic for us to try and do things in
Europe, for instance. We’re a long way from Europe. Students from Europe
who come to the United States and to university, don’t always think of USC.
The numbers are quite a bit smaller. And so, in a sense, we’re trying to open
a market for us, and our research. There’s an awful lot of competition in
Europe from Eastern universities.
200
As with other aspects of international exchange in education, key competitors in
the Pacific Rim are seen as coming from a few particular countries:
Academic unit administrator, engineering: We’ve made a choice to focus on
India and China, but I do think we can’t count on that forever, because Great
Britain is focusing on those countries for graduate programs. Australia is
practically buying students to come to Australia. And so, if we don’t kind of
be mindful of that, it’s going to hurt us in the long run, I think.
Even participants whose own research and expertise are associated with
locations outside of Asia acknowledge that the Pacific Rim emphasis is a wise
decision for a university seeking to expand its influence and involvement globally,
while also developing new revenue sources.
Faculty member, political science: So, I mean, in a way, this strategic plan is
very much a reflection of what’s going on in the international business
community. It’s like an international business plan, if you want my opinion.
It’s a pretty sound one. The smart thing about the Pacific Rim initiative, is
that it wasn’t just Asia, or just Latin America. By targeting Pacific Rim, they
pretty much soaked up all the emerging markets.
While the consensus among study participants was that very little additional
funding has been assigned to support internationalization efforts, even in the Pacific
Rim, when choices have to be made about projects to support, those with a Pacific
Rim connection receive first priority. Central administrators and deans reported
using this approach to making funding decisions for newly developed international
initiatives:
Central administrator: ….when it’s a question of where to put
resources…where do you put incremental resources? You put them into the
Pacific Rim. That said, you know, we have scholars who’ve studied British
literature. Well, you don’t tell them, “You have to go study British literature
in China, and go to conferences in China on British literature,” because that
doesn’t make sense.
201
Speaking of the emphasis on Asia and Latin America, an academic unit
administrator added:
Academic unit administrator, social work: You know, people all had
individual things, and it added up to nothing institutionally except they took
trips, and mostly, it was summer travel money. They got USAID funds to do
this, and to do that. It didn’t add up to an agenda for the academic unit, itself.
And so, when I came here, I recognized that we have limited resources. I
don’t prevent anybody from going anywhere, or doing anything they want to,
but in terms of institutional investment, everybody understands we pick the
two areas [Asia and Latin America] out as a focus.
Even in some cases when a project utilized outside funding sources and receives
no financial support from within the university, USC’s Pacific Rim connections have
contributed in other ways. One faculty member recounted some of the non-financial
resources at his disposal when designing a major collaborative research project in
Asia:
Faculty member, medicine: …the Pacific Rim initiative has been a catalyst,
though. I think it has encouraged us to extend our research in the training
activities, and not that we’ve received direct incentives, financial incentives
or anything for it. We’ve certainly received a lot of encouragement and
gained access to people at levels of USC that we’d normally not be talking to
on a regular basis, because they’re keenly interested in this, and then, they’ve
done quite a bit to promote it, and it gets legitimacy within the Keck School
[of Medicine] I think, which, itself, has not been very involved in
international activities.
The amount of emphasis and energy, if not financial resources, put toward the
Pacific Rim was agreeable to most study participants, but some concerns were raised
about the downsides of this limited geographic strategy. These potential drawbacks
concerned issues of diversity among the international student body, perceived
neglect of Europe, and a lack of attention on the least wealthy parts of the world,
including the continent of Africa.
202
Program staff member, ESL language program: I think that you could shift
some of the resources that we’ve put into that region, into other regions now,
and not suffer for it. I don’t think that our visibility or the relationship that
we enjoy would decrease, in any meaningful way, by just taking some of
those resources, and beginning to develop, you know, other regions, sort of
maybe one by one. Maybe not Africa, Europe, Central and South America
all at once, but you know, like choose a region, and have a seven year plan,
and choose the next region, and have a seven year plan.
There are some signs that the university is beginning to do what was proposed
by a staff members in the above comments. With the opening of an office in Mexico
City, USC has initiated a presence in a part of the Pacific Rim that has received only
sporadic attention by the university in the past. Even within the Pacific Rim itself,
however, there is often disagreement about the best new locations for USC presence
to be expanded.
Central administrator: You know, as soon as we thought about opening up
an office in Mexico, and we started putting out word about that, some
powerful person across campus went, “Why not Seoul, Korea?” you know?
“I was screaming from the very beginning, our first office should have been
in Shanghai. Why aren’t we there, you know, that’s where we need the
help.” And so, everybody’s got a pull and a good strong rationale, and so,
rather than boom here, boom there, let’s have a strategy towards where all
we’re going to be, it’s probably, as an academic institution needs to do, it’s
been a slow and thoughtful process.
Calls for more involvement in Europe often include a specific desire for USC’s
next international office, should the administration decide to open one, to be in
Europe. As one leader of an academic unit stated:
Academic unit administrator, communication: I don’t think for the Pacific
Rim focus, USC can afford to sit out the exciting developments in Europe,
and I mean, look at how Europe has changed with the creation of the EU, and
the emergence of the Euro as the most important currency, with the dollar
slide. If we’re truly international, let’s not cast ourself as a regional
institution, again. I mean, Europe is a very important, exciting place, and we
need to be well represented there.
203
This argument is often built around the fact that many more American students
study abroad in Europe than in the Pacific Rim countries of Asia and Latin America.
This trend is certainly not unique to USC, as most colleges and universities across
the US experience similar patterns. On the other hand eight of the top ten sending
countries for international students at USC are from Asia, as can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6. International Student Enrollment at USC, by Country
Country Total international student enrollment
1990 1995 2000 2003
India 275 247 676 1048
China 405 365 657 737
South Korea 384 512 560 693
Taiwan 825 827 701 640
Canada 97 131 143 241
Japan 170 224 202 219
Hong Kong 229 276 185 194
Indonesia 202 230 180 145
Thailand 51 83 142 128
Turkey 35 46 94 105
Note. University of Southern California, Office of International Services Enrollment Reports. (2003-
2004, 2000-2001, 1995-1996, 1990-1991)
Some expressed concern about the danger of placing too much emphasis on a
particular region of the world, especially considering the potential for political and
204
economic shifts that might make partnerships and exchanges more difficult. As one
staff member explained:
Program staff member, student recruitment: … you never want to have your
eggs in one basket. For example, if you have students from a certain area of
the world…we saw in Asia, when there were real dips in the Korean, and
Indonesian, and Thai economies, and the students went from being rather
well off, to being really destitute, just because of the devaluation. So, if you
have all of your students from one region, then you always run the risk of that
happening, and that was a pretty dire effect, I think, for a year or two after
that, for some good populations. So, that’s why it’s better to have kind of a
broad-based approach, rather than just depend on one particular area, and I
think the university would agree.
While the institution’s leadership may not stand in the way of ongoing or new
initiatives in parts of the world outside of the Pacific Rim, there has been little or no
indication of a desire to expand formal internationalization efforts elsewhere. In the
case of Africa, for example, a big concern is the ability of students to pay the high
cost of a USC education. There are a small number of study abroad programs to
Africa, and some faculty do teach courses with a focus on African issues, but it is
certainly not an institutional focus.
Central administrator: Africa would be an interesting place for us to try and
do some things, but, again, it’s quite far away, it’s quite expensive for
students to come to USC. It’s an interesting challenge to see in the
developing world what people can afford, or not afford, in order to come to
the university. And so, the challenge becomes… although we have some
programs now in South Africa and Kenya, and Tanzania, still, it’s not the
same as having a full-blown office. We haven’t really talked about having an
office out in Europe or Africa or anything.
Clearly the university’s focus has been on Asia in the past 15 years. Europe is
seen as territory that other American universities, particularly those on the U.S. east
coast, have covered well. As for Africa, participant responses seem to indicate that
205
the continent is not seen as a viable location for the development of major university
programs. Given that the emphasis on Asia seems to be due largely to the potential
for access to expanding markets, and due to the existing alumni base and contacts in
that region, Africa is not a likely site for future expansion of internationalization
efforts. It should be noted, however, that some individual faculty at USC are quite
interested in Africa as a site for research and a topic for curricular focus.
As seen in several of the previous interview quotes, the concept of physical
distance was mentioned often as a reason for favoring Asia over other world regions
for USC’s internationalization efforts. This despite the fact that in real measures,
much of Europe is about the same distance (and flight time) from Los Angeles, and
much of Latin America is even closer. This reported distance by several participants
appears to be a conception brought about by the U.S. west coast’s placement on the
Pacific Rim (and hence a neighbor to Asia), or perhaps even by similar arguments
made within the university community.
As noted previously, the region that has garnered closer attention recently is
Latin America. The 1994 Strategic Plan mentioned Latin America in its discussion
of the Pacific Rim focus, but efforts to date have been directed mostly toward Asia
where the university’s greatest connections existed in the early 1990s. Study
participants spoke of the need to advance USC’s Latin America endeavors, in some
cases trying new programs modeled after successes in Asia. The Mexico City office,
according to many, is the initial step in a concerted effort to establish a much wider
presence in this region. Other discussed initiatives include student recruitment,
206
alumni outreach, potential offshore education programs, and more support for
research collaborations with institutions in Latin America. USC does have some
faculty who specialize in Latin American issues, or have strong collaborative
relationships with partners in the region, in various fields such as International
Relations, Education, Anthropology, Comparative Literature, Medicine and others,
but most campus leaders expressed concern that the number is not high enough,
especially for a major research university in Los Angeles, with close proximity to
Central and South America.
Academic unit administrator, communication: … we have quite a way to go
in that regard. And, it’s funny, because we are such an international city. We
have so many people who speak Spanish, and some Spanish culture lives
here, people from all those countries, but still, we have not become the place
that people go to, and I think that’s going to take a real effort on the part of
the university, not just the individual schools.
The initial focus on Mexico is seen as the beginning of an overall strategy to
develop connections throughout Latin America. Most participants in this study
brought up student recruitment as the most pressing need to jump-start a stronger
focus on the region.
Program staff member, student recruitment: And, the area, I think, that will
open more to us now, in that we have an office in Mexico City will be Latin
America. Hopefully, that will be a stepping off place. We hope to have a
greater presence, a greater kind of visibility now in Mexico, because we
literally have, I think, 20 international students who go to USC from Mexico.
We certainly have a lot of Mexican-American students, but very few that
come on visas. And so, we’re hoping that that will expand to our neighbor to
the South.
One administrator brought up other potential developments that could be realized
with more attention and resources put toward programs in Mexico:
207
Central administrator: … as we develop these relationships in Mexico, now
that we have the office there, and as we develop deeper relations with UNAM
and other universities in Mexico City, and the government, and then, a huge
Mexican diaspora that’s here in Southern California, and there’s all sorts of
really neat things that you can imagine coming from that, in terms of research
connections, community relations, all sorts of stuff. And, we don’t have
some sort of systematic plan to do that, but I think that the new Provost will
almost certainly want to think about how do we do that systematically.
Some believe that the task of strengthening ties in Latin America must also start
with a discussion of how this fits into the Pacific Rim. A key question being
considered is, “Should USC get involved in all of Latin America, even those parts
not physically on the Pacific Rim?”
Faculty member, art history: I think, first of all, just the whole Pacific Rim
thing is undergoing a little bit of a change right now, in that we have
suddenly realized that Mexico’s part of the Pacific Rim, and I think Chile
might also be part of the Pacific Rim, I’m not sure. So, there’s this whole,
not only Asia part of the Pacific Rim, this is extremely important because
there are very important resources, such as students from Mexico. I think the
number of students that we have from Mexico, in our whole university, is
something like six.
An example of the need to define more clearly what the Pacific Rim means to
USC, or at least which parts of Latin America will be prioritized is illustrated by this
comment from one central administrator, noting the growing interest in Brazil:
Central administrator: You know, Brazil’s become a really hot item, and
we’re trying to figure out even in the Marshall school in PRIME, how do you
go to Brazil when that’s fully on the Atlantic.
This dilemma is perhaps best summed up by the slightly bemused comment
from one professor:
Faculty member, art history: I think that the Pacific Rim, itself, is bigger
than we thought it was.
208
Although most interview participants were generally supportive of USC’s
decision to focus energy on the Pacific Rim as part of the internationalization
initiative, as long as other regions are not neglected entirely, some concerns and
criticism were raised. A staff member noted that the strategic plan’s Pacific Rim
emphasis does not always play a part in the decisions made about new program
initiatives, especially if the leaders of a specific school do not make it an issue:
Program staff member, study abroad: And frankly, the deans of our school,
who of course, we report to, who are part of central administration, they don’t
talk about the Pacific Rim Initiative. There’s no push coming from them or
the people we directly report to, to really grow in that area.
According to one staff member who works with students interested in study
abroad, there is a disconnect between the strategic plan’s emphasis on the Pacific
Rim, and undergraduate students’ interests:
Program staff member, study abroad: Truthfully, not that much student
interest in the Pacific Rim, I mean it’s interesting. There's a huge divide. If
you talk to central administration, it’s all about Pacific Rim. If you talk to
students, 8 out of 10 of them or even 9 out of 10 of them, depending on the
group you’re talking to, isn’t thinking about that as a destination. They aren’t
even thinking about it as a focus of their academic for future on campus.
A professor noted that it would be useful for the university to focus on curricular
developments related to the Pacific Rim to a greater extent, developing an area
studies type program that focused on the region, its peoples, nations and problems.
This professor’s concern was that USC places too much emphasis on networking and
making international connections without backing up this effort with strong
curricular developments:
Faculty member, education: I don’t feel that the central administration
understands what’s really involved with a Pacific Rim program, for example.
209
I’m not sure that anyone really does. It’s very broad; that’s going to be very
difficult. It’s a good challenge – probably one we should take on, because I
don’t know any place that’s doing greater work in the Pacific Rim, so what
an opportunity for us.
In summary, although opinions vary regarding the wisdom of selecting the
Pacific Rim as USC’s area of emphasis in its internationalization, the course has
been set and the university has maintained its commitment to this region through
three strategic plans over the past 12 years. While the language of the most recent
plan includes more attention to global issues and solving societal problems
worldwide, the university has not diverted from its attention to Asia first, and more
recently, to Latin America. Of course not all of the university’s international
activities take place within the confines of this one world region. The faculty
includes experts on Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and other regions.
Undergraduate students, like their counterparts at institutions across the U.S., still
predominantly study in European destinations when they go abroad. Alumni groups
have also organized in regions outside of Asia and Latin America, providing USC a
base for potential expansion of connections in different regions. The general sense
from USC’s leadership, however, is that the Pacific Rim emphasis has not come
close to running its course, and will be the continued focus of the university in the
foreseeable future.
210
Looking Toward the Future:
Anticipated or Desired Future Developments in Internationalization
Despite the perceived shortfalls and criticisms outlined earlier, the vast majority
of interview participants seemed to view USC’s pursuit of internationalization and
global reach as a work in progress, with much more to come in the next 5 to 10
years. Where opinions varied, however, was in exactly how they preferred that the
institution proceed in terms of resource allocation and programmatic priorities in the
next phase of development. Among the ideas proposed were increased attention to
distance education, new ventures in offshore instructional programs, more emphasis
on study abroad, and several others.
Distance education has been receiving some interest on campus for several
years, often in the context of domestic programs thus far. The attention may be
shifting to international possibilities for distance education, as demonstrated by the
following two comments:
Central administrator: …we’re thinking about distance learning, and
thinking about accessing students who may not have the time to come here,
or who can’t get visas to come here. Can we do more of our educational
components by distance, or some mixture of these things?
Central administrator: The focus on distance learning has real potential. We
try to understand what models work. What we’re seeing is a lot of people
pour a lot of money into distance learning, and [lose money], and we don’t
want to do that. So we’re trying to understand what models work, and to
proceed carefully and slowly, but it was an intentional decision. So that
part’s going to continue. We’ve made heavy investments in technology just
out of need, being international or not. I think what we see is that clearly has
a spin-off that’s international.
211
Like most traditional “bricks and mortar” universities, USC is proceeding
cautiously into distance education. Many feel strongly that the on-campus
experience is one of the distinguishing features of a USC education, both
undergraduate and graduate, and that even with distance education, this should not
be lost.
Program staff member, student affairs: So I don’t think that we just want to
become one of those universities that has the distance learning courses that
you just throw out there, and there’s not a standard of excellence. And so I
think it’s really important, and I don’t know whether it’s possible, but I think
that whoever gets the degree or whatever they do, I think a component should
be that they actually come here, and spend some time here.
Offshore educational programs are another type of initiative that is discussed
often among the leadership at USC. Many administrators mentioned the fact that
other US institutions have been involved in offshore programs much longer than
USC, but that many of these ventures ended in failure, such as the numerous
American branch campuses in Japan from about 20 years ago.
Central administrator: Nobody thinks USC’s going to go and build a
campus somewhere, I’ll bet you it’s not going to happen. But, you know,
rather like Marshall’s Executive MBA program, the president and provost
have challenged schools to think about what aspects of their programs could
fit a format like that. Obviously, it’s not going to be undergraduate
education. It’s probably not going to be doctoral education, but professional
master’s education could easily be suited to that in many fields.
Academic unit administrator, business: Are we going to have campuses
everywhere? Are we going to have teaching offices, teaching structures
everywhere? We don’t know. Are we going to have, like companies do, are
we going to have foreign workers working for us in other countries teaching
for us?
The MBA program started by the university in Shanghai in 2004 is seen by
many as an experiment that could be duplicated in other academic units with the
212
implementation of degree programs offered overseas in locations with an existing
demand for academic training in a particular field. Besides locating a demand for
such programs, finding markets with the resources to pay for these costly offerings is
certainly part of the strategy.
Offshore education is an area that USC appears to be cautious about jumping
into aggressively. No respondents, at any level within the university, reported a clear
plan for the development of such programs. Instead, projects are being tried one by
one with no long-term commitment that the university will eventually operate a
certain number of degree programs overseas. Some participants mentioned the
failure of many offshore programs operated by other U.S. universities, including
several in the Pacific Rim region. The lure of China may be too much to resist,
however, as several respondents noted the immense potential for entrance into the
higher education market in that country.
Asked what they thought would make USC a more international university,
some administrators noted that they would like to see more American students spend
time abroad. While traditionally this has meant participation in a credit-bearing
study abroad program of a semester or more, an administrator’s comment on this
topic indicates that there is some openness to other types of international
involvement by students.
Central administrator: One of the best issues, hopefully, there will be more
students going abroad to study, but that’s not the only other international
activity we can do that would support this idea of kind of living outside the
four classroom walls.
213
The other participant group that frequently mentioned a desire for a future with
more students studying overseas was program staff. The idea of a comprehensive
study abroad requirement, while not supported by most, was mentioned by a few
people.
Program staff member, study abroad: …it’s unfortunate we can’t do this
financially, but I think that there should be a requirement for almost every
student here. Any students who even think that they want, that they are going
to do anything in the global arena need to study overseas, whether it is
through an exchange program or something else.
Another staff member described what a more internationalized USC would
ideally look like:
Program staff member, study abroad: I think that there would be more
institutional support for expansion of overseas opportunities and increased
support for making those more accessible to students. For example, making
more financial aide available in the summer for students who want to
participate in the overseas summer programs, which are now virtually only
available to the rich. And maybe developing more of USC’s own programs,
because USC considers itself to be a top notch university and we think that
the education that we’re providing is valuable, that we’re in a sense a brand
that is worth having, then maybe we should have more of our own programs
overseas.
A few respondents spoke of desired increased internationalization of the faculty.
These comments generally focused on the need for some kinds of incentives to
encourage faculty in all fields to enhance the global content in the curriculum and to
become more involved in research internationally. An administrator admitted that
this aspect of USC’s international strategy has not received its due attention thus far,
but would be an appropriate topic for more discussion as the university moves
forward:
214
Central administrator: One thing we haven’t talked about, and I don’t really
think there are answers on it yet, is how to encourage and assist the faculty in
those fields that aren’t just obviously related to this, in the way that
communications or business are, to sort of think about the implications of all
of this, you know, what does a global presence mean for them? How would
that change the way that they think about their discipline, or they teach about
it, or the research that they do.
Commenting on the faculty evaluation process, one faculty member indicated an
interest in getting others to assess the process and recommend changes that might
lead to stronger international involvement by faculty across the university:
Faculty member, social work: I would personally like to be part of a group
of faculty who are working internationally, and who are concerned about
tenure promotion guidelines maybe not being in line with the activities of
people who are working internationally.
As noted previously, most participants saw the international offices opened by
USC in the past decade as a major success. The future direction of these offices,
both in their programmatic mandate and the consideration of possible new office
locations, is a matter of debate among many at the university. Discussing the many
questions about how best to use these offices to further USC’s mission and strategic
plan, one administrator stated:
Central administrator: …we’re kind of a victim of our own success as
people have now seen how much value we can add with this on the ground
presence, everybody now wants a part of it. And so, we’re at a turning point
in these things. What are we going to do with them? Are we going to grow
them? Are we going to scale back, you know, and only provide X amount of
services, or are we going to turn into, like much of the rest of this campus,
which I really don’t like, into a fee per service kind of unit?
Now that USC has ventured beyond its comfort zone in Asia and opened an
office in Mexico, many are wondering where the next office will be. Two distinct
perspectives emerged on this topic in the interviews. One set of participants,
215
generally those with strong ties in Asia, believed that much of Asia has been left
uncovered by an on-the-ground USC presence, and that should be the priority.
Others made a case for Europe as the next location for a USC office, with most
specifically citing London as an appropriate venue. Some alumni in the UK have
called for such an office, and many staff who send students to Europe on study
abroad programs also agree that this region should be next on the agenda, despite
veering from the university’s Pacific Rim focus.
Program staff member, study abroad: The next place you may see one is
London, because there are a number of very influential people, people that
have risen up the ranks in London that are now crying for an office, a
European office, and it could be centered in London. The problem is that I
don’t know if they are strong enough, I don’t know if the ties are strong
enough in order to do this…
Having the most international students of any American university does not
leave much room for improvement, but there were some ideas from participants
about how the population of students might shift in the coming years, in some cases
due to forces external to the university, and in the second example below, due to
specific goals at USC about the kinds of students targeted for recruitment,
Program staff member, international student services: … as the economies
in the rest of the world improve, I think we’re going to see greater diversity
in the fields of study of students. As we see that, I think we’re going to start
to see more students than we have right now come in here for short courses
who are enrolled say at the University of Bonn, but as a part of their program
they’re coming here for a semester, they’re coming here for a year, but
they’re going back to receive their degree at Bonn. At present, less than one
percent of our international students are in programs of that nature. They’re
almost all here wanting a U.S. degree. I think we’re going to see changes in
that area in the future.
Program staff member, student recruitment: I would hope that we would
really increase our undergraduate population. I think that we’re very, very
216
top-heavy in graduate students, and not that that’s a good thing, but those are
not really the students, just by the nature of their mission, which is research,
quick degrees, if they’re in a Master’s Degree program, not much
involvement in campus life, overall. You know, they don’t, generally, live on
campus, they don’t participate in lots of the clubs and organizations, they’re
not involved in those ways. So, I would say an increase in the undergraduate
numbers of students would really be something that I would hope for, but
maybe that percentage now, I think it’s about 6% to 7%, maybe it’d be a little
closer to 10%.
All groups besides central administrators felt that more financial resources
should be allocated to international programs in the coming years if the university is
to truly succeed in meeting its objectives for expanding global reach.
Academic unit administrator, social work: I think the fact that we have…I
think the strategic plan and its emphasis, everybody’s talking about being
global, but our strategic plan, I thought, was a very positive thing, and it
continues to be. I think we need more donors to support international, our
globalization or internationalization efforts so we don’t waste our time on a
lot of penny ante stuff.
Program staff member, study abroad: And I think more money has to be put
toward international. We don’t have an international center. International
students -- I understand why -- but they can’t get any money. We don’t have
any kind of scholarships for our own students going abroad. If they could
just get more loans…
An administrator who commented on the future development of funding for
international initiatives noted that any increases in this area would have to come
from external sources, or from Deans shifting resources from other priorities. This
administrator saw potential, however, for support from the US government,
especially considering the focus on security and anti-terrorism efforts of the past few
years.
Central administrator: …more and more federal dollars are going to go to
supporting things related to national security, and it ranges from protecting
nuclear plants and civilian airports, to more Arabic speakers or people who
217
understand the culture and history of Muslim countries. So, there will be a
flow of funds over the years coming ahead, and foundations will also. USC
will aggressively go after these funds, both as an institution and individuals,
just the history of academics, where the funds are, people go for it, so we
have this first Homeland Security Center. But, much more broadly than that,
we want to develop teaching and research about the world, about culture, and
about diplomacy, and not simply to answer U.S. government requests for
proposals, and maybe other universities will, also.
Curricular issues and foreign language instruction were part of some
participants’ vision of future internationalization at USC, although there were few
specific ideas for changes to be made. Most comments related to the curriculum
called for increased attention to teaching about non-Western cultures and societies.
Program staff member, study abroad: Curriculum-wise, I would like to see a
greater focus on teaching people about the international arena, about non-
Western or non-US based materials, and that, to me, would be successful
A professor thought that the university’s Pacific Rim focus should be used to
develop strong curricular content in this area, rather than just focusing on networking
and connections in that region:
Faculty member, education: Attention to cultural systems and international
structures, is something the Pacific Rim idea would be perfect for. If they
said, we’re really going to develop Pacific Rim studies, and focus on that as a
concept. How do countries around the world relate to each other? How does
the rim come into play? What is the Pacific Rim, and so forth?
Only a few participants suggested that foreign language instruction should be
enhanced and more students should be required to study a foreign language as part of
their degree programs. Outside of a strict language requirement, one participant
noted that it can be difficult to get students to study another language, although he
noted that one effective strategy might be to draw upon students’ concern with
finding jobs after graduation:
218
Program staff member, study abroad: …language training is the first step in
bringing any type of cultural training because you can pass along a little bit
about that. It’s a little easier, also, to get students to take that, because it’s a
marketable skill at that point, taking a class on Buddhism, you can’t really
quantify that on a resume when you go in and apply for a job. Taking three
semesters of Chinese is very easily quantifiable, and could be listed as a skill.
Issues of expanded networking around the world, and increased prestige and
reputation, were other themes that emerged when participants were asked what lies
ahead for USC’s internationalization. One professor’s description of a more highly
internationalized network, with USC at the center, aptly depicted what many in the
administration appear to be seeking as well:
Faculty member, art history: …we might start seeing something almost like
an alliance, like the airplane alliances with the airlines, or whatever, where
we are maybe in a hub, but we are very much having partners all over the
world, who might, then, have other partners in a kind of constellation. So, I
think maybe, to some extent, we’ve always done this, but I think our usual
globalization is suggesting that we are maybe going to plant ourselves more
in many more parts of the world with a kind of huge reciprocity of learning,
as we develop these programs. Maybe it’s an intensification as much as
anything else.
Finally, another professor talked of USC’s desire to be recognized among the
very top research institutions in the US and worldwide, and how having some key
internationally-oriented academic programs that are top in their field would help with
this goal:
Faculty member, education: I was thinking of reputation, which is hard to
change. Actually it takes a while to make that happen, unless an institution
has extraordinary resources, money to do it with. But the reputation among
faculty and grad students is the issue. I don’t see a large part of the American
student population being interested in internationalization, but certainly the
reputation among faculty is crucial. Everyone who has an interest in studying
Southeast Asia knows that if you want to study that region, you have to send
off an application to Cornell. And everyone knows that if it was China,
you’d have to include Harvard on your list.
219
This professor is arguing the point that for internationalization to really take hold
at USC, and be sustained for the long term, the university will need to become
recognized for having exceptional strength in some particular areas of study, even a
geographic and political concept as broad as the Pacific Rim. The recognition of
Cornell and Harvard as preeminent in China studies and Southeast Asian studies
respectively, shows that the competition is stiff even within USC’s region of focus.
Others point to Ivy League universities’ connections in Europe, and the desire for
USC to play a similar role in the Pacific Rim.
Conclusion
Before one can attempt to measure USC’s success in attainment of its strategic
initiative on internationalization, it must first be recognized that different actors
define this concept in their own ways, and therefore not everyone is working toward
the same goals. Based on the responses from interview participants in this study, it
appears that most administrators, faculty and staff are in favor of the university
making internationalization a top priority, so there is broad support for the general
statement of intent. Central administrators do not seem overly concerned with the
existence of divergent views on internationalization, since the approach is generally
to encourage schools and individuals to pursue their own collaborations, and utilize
their own existing resources to implement new international programs. While
strategic planning documents include some specific suggestions about the type of
220
programs that may emerge from this process, USC’s decentralized structure allows
for creativity within individual units.
The strategic planning process is geared toward elevating USC’s reputation and
prestige domestically and around the world. Most participants recognized this, and
only a few contested the appropriateness of this emphasis. Instead, many were
concerned with how the focus on internationalization would affect their own work,
which typically included substantial international activities of some kind.
Each group of respondents brought their own perspective into the discussion.
Central administrators generally took a broad view of the university’s objective of
establishing a greater presence globally, and expressed an assumption that this
development would in turn lead to more specific attainments in the specific areas of
international research, study abroad, continued high levels of international student
enrollment, and greater influence internationally for the university. Academic unit
administrators noted their role as leaders of USC’s core academic units, and were
seen to be struggling with the balance between central administration expectations
and the demands and trends in their own academic fields. Faculty who took part in
this study were more concerned with internationalization of the curriculum than
other groups, and were more likely to express criticism of the university’s progress
in internationalization. Program staff, while optimistic about the inclusion of
internationalization as a key strategic focus of the university, were sometimes
disappointed with the level of coordination of these efforts and the lack of a large
pool of central resources for their own activities.
221
Chapter Six
Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter reviews the four research questions that guided this study,
commenting on conclusions reached from the research data. Next, some general
conclusions are offered, with special focus on USC’s current institutional status and
the potential for further internationalization. Several recommendations for further
action conclude this report.
Research Questions
Question 1
What are the rationales for internationalization as a strategic initiative in higher
education, as defined by USC?
The rationales stated in formal strategic plans and other documents focus
primarily on academic reasons for pursuing internationalization and, to a lesser
extent, on cultural rationales. The academic rationales stated in the plans include
enhancement of the quality of education by providing an international perspective,
opening doors to innovative research by establishing networks abroad, and
enhancing profile and status of the university. Some attention was also given to the
cultural rationale of helping students to develop greater awareness of the
interdependence of different societies and the international nature of knowledge.
Appreciation of other cultures is a commonly stated reason for internationalization
222
by members of the university community, but this idea is not prevalent in USC’s
formal documents.
University administrators, faculty and staff interviewed for this project
concurred with the emphasis on academic rationales, but many believed that
economic reasons were at least as important in shaping the university’s strategy.
Interviewees often spoke of USC’s rapid rise in national (and international) rankings
and prestige, and they saw the internationalization strategy as inexorably linked with
the improvement in the rankings. Administrators, faculty and staff also reported that
to maintain the overall progress of the university in terms of brand name recognition
and real and perceived quality, it was essential to become more international in
focus. At the same time, they recognized that many elements of internationalization,
including enrollment of large numbers of foreign students and development of
offshore educational programs in lucrative markets, have a direct financial benefit to
the institution. Some participants expressed a bit of pessimism about the financial
motivations, worrying that the university was losing site of its core educational
mission due to an over-concern with accumulating resources, but this was a minority
view.
Generally, in written documents and in interviews, a central argument was made
that not internationalizing was not an option. Whether internationalization was seen
as a response to forces of globalization or to the need to keep up with (or in some
cases, surpass) competitors, a sense of inevitability was communicated quite clearly.
This applies to participants at all levels. Almost without exception, participants
223
believed that inclusion of internationalization as a key institutional objective was a
good idea.
Question 2
What types of internationalization objectives are proposed and what has been
accomplished during the period examined in this study? How is the success of this
strategy measured by the institution?
The stated objectives in USC’s strategic plans concerning internationalization
are mostly broad goals intended to establish a framework for more specific actions to
be determined by individual units within the university. The 1994 plan included
such objectives as focusing on the Pacific Rim, building connections with
institutions abroad, and creating internal structures to support internationalization.
By 1998, the objectives became a bit more focused, with specific goals for increased
study abroad and hiring of international faculty expressed. Then, in 2004, the most
recent plan returned to more general statements, laying out a vision for how USC can
use its growing international connections to elevate the university’s status worldwide
and to address major societal problems. All three documents stressed the emerging
value of transnational education projects, including offshore programs for
professionals.
Throughout the planning process over the past decade or more, a large part of
the focus for USC’s efforts in internationalization have centered on the promise of
creating networking opportunities for faculty, administrators, and students. The
224
overall objective, clarified and strengthened in the 2004 plan, appears to be the
establishment of a truly global presence for the university, with the assumption that
this presence will advance all of USC’s major initiatives.
In terms of global presence, the successes are many. As noted in the
presentation of data, several attainments espoused in written documents and by
interview participants relate to the major initiatives that have brought about an
increased international presence for the university. Among these are the
establishment of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU), the creation of
five international offices, the implementation of major USC conferences in Asia, and
the inclusion of several international members on USC’s Board of Trustees. Each of
these actions has served the university well in creating opportunities for members of
the university community to interact with colleagues and leaders globally, albeit with
a specific focus to date on Asian countries on the Pacific Rim.
All along, the key underlying objective of each strategic plan has been for USC
to reach higher levels of prestige, respect, and influence. One can see some progress
in this regard by reviewing various rankings that show USC and many of its various
schools and departments on the rise over the past 10 to 15 years. As noted by several
of USC’s leaders, internationalization, or the more recently adopted “expanded
global presence,” is seen as critical to this continued ascent.
Other, more specific, attainments noted in formal documents or by study
participants included such things as establishment of new initiatives for overseas
study (many at the graduate level, however), securing of major grants to support
225
centers such as the East Asian Studies Center (EASC) and the Center for
International Business Education and Research (CIBEAR), and USC’s continued
preeminence in enrollment of international students.
Despite the noted successes of the past decade or more, many study participants
felt that there have been several shortfalls. Some even took issue with the specific
adopted objectives related to internationalization. These criticisms focused on three
main areas: (1) the perception that USC should be focusing more attention and
resources on curricular developments and research about the world (or the Pacific
Rim), rather than initiatives intended to establish a greater presence internationally,
(2) the perception that certain strategic decisions are made with financial
considerations (i.e., income possibilities) ta king precedent over other factors, and (3)
some discomfort with USC’s clear focus on increasing prestige and brand name
recognition (with an implied concern for neglect of academic quality issues). This
uneasiness with marketing USC’s brand name was not held by all participants, but
those who did express this concern reported skepticism that a university could
maintain exceptional quality in its traditional academic programs while at the same
time investing resources and attention into various ventures overseas.
The action areas considered shortfalls to date were agreed upon by most, if not
all, study participants, and included several key issues: (1) enhancement of study
abroad for undergraduates, (2) not enough attention paid to how international and
domestic students can learn from one another, (3) the need for closer relationships
with international alumni (to further all of the other internationalization objectives),
226
(4) deficient focus on Latin America, and (5) uneven commitment to
internationalization in different academic units. The last concern was perhaps most
striking during the conduct of this study. It was clear that most, but not all, academic
units have adopted the internationalization strategy as part of their own planning.
Some, however, have established priorities more in concert with other elements and
initiatives included in the three most recent university strategic plans. Faculty and
staff who support internationalization, but are part of academic units that they
perceive to be unsupportive of these goals, expressed frustration and a sense of
isolation as they pursue global initiatives. Some get around this situation by finding
allies in other units or in the central administration who can help further their
programs and initiatives. Others, especially faculty, look outside the institution for
resources and support from institutions such as foundations, governmental agencies,
and corporations. This could be considered an intended outcome of USC’s strategy
to promote networking and external relationships with an international focus, the
perception of some within the university is that internal support is hard to find.
Question 3
To what extent do market forces and competition influence the effort to
internationalize a higher education institution?
Over the past 15 years, USC has made substantial strides in overall prestige and
rankings, resulting from such attainments as a markedly better undergraduate student
academic profile, an unprecedented capital fundraising campaign, and the increased
227
respect for several of its undergraduate and graduate degree programs, among others.
The formal statements made by the university (in the form of the Strategic Plans of
1994, 1998 and 2004) indicate a belief that the university’s efforts to internationalize
during this same time period are closely linked with this continued success. Some
study participants, especially administrators, agreed that internationalization is one of
the key ways that the university will distinguish itself from competitors in the years
to come. There is a recognition, however, that many other institutions are attempting
to do the same thing, and that it will be important to be innovative and aggressive in
expanding the international involvements of the university to outpace USC’s
competitors.
Some respondents in this study reported that USC has begun a process of
shifting its attention to institutional competitors on a global scale, rather than
continuing to compete directly with regional or national universities as in the past.
Even though USC does still compare itself and compete with other major U.S.
institutions, this more global outlook reflects a strategy of positioning USC as a
model university for the next century, following an assumption that the leading
institutions in the coming years will be those with more widespread connections and
programs around the world.
The views of faculty and staff differed somewhat from the prevailing views of
the administration. Faculty and staff were more likely to state a perception that USC
is pursuing internationalization to keep up with the popular trend in higher education,
but were less convinced that what USC is doing is state-of-the-art. Nearly all
228
participants were supportive nonetheless of the inclusion of internationalization in
USC’s strategic plans, due to their belief in the educational benefits of such
initiatives.
The choice of the Pacific Rim as a region of emphasis demonstrates a keen
interest in positioning the university to take advantage of the rapidly developing
higher education markets in this area with greatest financial potential. As noted by
several university representatives, many prestigious U.S. universities are already
very active in Europe, but USC does not have the same level of contacts there as in
the Asian region. USC’s leadership also sees a chance for the university to assume a
leadership position in Asia, and perhaps in Latin America, that would not be possible
elsewhere.
In the strategic plans and the comments of several campus leaders, it would
appear that USC is becoming more interested in offshore educational programs than
in the past. When such programs are discussed, the talk generally focuses on
executive style programs for professionals, a high demand market with growing
numbers of potential students with the resources (or their employers’ resources) to
pay for such programs. The success of these endeavors depends heavily on brand
name recognition, something that USC is working actively to strengthen in the
targeted area through the establishment of offices in Asia and Mexico, the USC Asia
conferences, and other outreach efforts. The Asia conferences have attempted to
bring together alumni, administrators, faculty, and Asian business and industry
leaders to focus on issues of importance to the Pacific Rim. The concurrent goal of
229
these events has been to increase the USC presence in Asia with influential regional
leaders.
Question 4
What administrative and organizational structures have supported or limited
internationalization efforts? How have these structures changed to facilitate
internationalization?
USC’s decentralized organizational structure, while touted as an advantage in
many instances, has also been a hindrance to realizing the full potential outcomes of
the central strategic planning process, including the area of internationalization. As
this study has shown, internationalization has occurred at vastly different levels
within the institution’s various academic units. Despite the very specific goals and
objectives outlined in the strategic plans, and the expressed desire of many
administrators, faculty and staff to see the university become more international in
scope throughout its programs and activities, not all units have enthusiastically
embraced this initiative. Some point to the differences between academic fields,
stating that certain fields are more international naturally and would therefore be
expected to be more successful in showing demonstrated internationalization. The
issue of university rankings is brought up often, and it is noted that not all ranking
systems include international activities among their criteria for evaluation.
Administrators, faculty and staff all pointed to deans of USC’s schools as perhaps
the most influential in determining the success of the internationalization initiative,
230
and they agreed that not every dean has shown the same level of interest in this part
of USC’s strategic plan.
Two administrative steps were taken in the time period immediately after the
enactment of USC’s 1994 strategic plan. The position of vice provost for
international affairs was created, and was filled as a 50% appointment by a professor
from the Marshall School of Business with extensive international experience,
especially in Asia, and expertise in Pacific Rim business issues and economic
development. At the time of this appointment, some on campus expected to find a
new large pool of internal resources to support their own international endeavors. As
those in the central administration stated, however, that was never the intention of
the internationalization strategy or the appointment of the vice provost. Instead, one
of this person’s roles was to provide encouragement to deans and others on campus
who were interested in developing international programs of various kinds.
The establishment of five international offices was an aggressive move on the
university’s part to establish a more permanent presence in the Pacific Rim. These
are rather lean operations with one-person staffs in each location, but their creation
and mission does send a message that the university is interested in formalizing its
presence in the host countries. Nearly a decade after the establishment of the first of
USC’s international offices, the university is still grappling with their role in serving
the many demands of the university community. While their central mission
includes such roles as alumni outreach and student recruitment, they also respond to
requests from individual academic units to help organize details involving foreign
231
trips by USC personnel. As such, they are administratively central offices, with the
sometimes difficult mandate to serve all of the university’s academic units.
A development with potentially beneficial implications for internationalization
during the strategic planning process of the past 12 years has been the concurrent
focus on interdisciplinary collaborations. Recognizing the challenges inherent in a
decentralized organization, the university’s leadership has attempted to foster
collaborations across academic units to focus teaching and research on complex
issues of importance. The latest strategic plan enacted in 2004 makes a strong case
for continued emphasis on interdisciplinary activities and how this effort should
result in stronger initiatives to combat global problems.
Faculty participants in this study reported no significant incentives for
internationalizing their teaching and research. Those with strong interests in
international topics and collaboration abroad continue to pursue those activities, and
in many schools this work is welcomed for its contributions to the
internationalization agenda. In other academic units, faculty reported that they felt
discouraged from pursuing international projects.
One additional point concerning the administrative structure of the university is
important to consider. In Summer 2005, immediately after the data collection phase
of this study, the university’s senior academic leadership underwent a transition,
including the hiring of a new provost and the subsequent reorganization of the
central academic leadership positions. During this process, several new
appointments were made to existing positions, new positions were added, and some
232
positions were eliminated. One of the first positions to be eliminated was that of
vice provost for international affairs. However, within three months, a newly created
position of senior executive director for global initiatives was announced, and filled
at 100% time with a professor of marketing and former administrator in the Marshall
School of Business. This appointee’s expertise in advertising, sales promotion, and
marketing management, along with considerable experience in Asia, would indicate
that he is well-suited to carry on the current activities that have made up the bulk of
USC’s internationalization strategy for the past decade. Moreover, his previous
experience overseeing executive education programs, alumni relations, corporate
relations and fundraising in the Marshall School demonstrates that the administration
is expecting to devote increased attention to these elements of USC’s global
presence.
Conclusions
The University of Southern California appears to be positioned ideally to
become one of the world’s preeminent global universities. The university is situated
in a truly international urban setting, boasts an enormous cadre of international
alumni around the world, and has experienced tremendous advancements in
institutional reputation over the past 15 years. Possessing an entrepreneurial spirit
that is supported by its status as a private university, USC prides itself on its ability,
and willingness, to be innovative and take risks in order to define the newly
emerging roles of twenty-first century research universities.
233
Like any complex academic institution the university faces many challenges to
realizing this goal. Clearly the academic priorities in each school vary greatly, and
not all are as concerned with internationalization as the strategic plans would
suggest. As noted earlier in this document, USC is not alone in its quest to be
recognized for its international programs and emphasis. As the ACE study on
internationalization (Siaya and Hayward, 2003) reports, over half of American
research universities have stated institutional commitment to internationalization in
their mission statements, and nearly two-thirds have established task forces to
operationalize this strategy. As such, USC is attempting to establish a leadership
position in a crowded field of competitors.
As with any competitive situation, creativity, organizational flexibility, and the
energetic resolve of institutional leadership will be necessary to achieve the desired
results. On a positive note, nearly all study respondents claimed to be supportive of
the university’s decision to focus on internationalization. It should also be noted that
the institution boasted many international strengths which preceded the
implementation of the strategic plans reviewed here. Among these strengths are the
activities of the School of International Relations. Established in 1924, USC’s
School of International Relations is the third oldest school of international affairs in
the world, and features numerous research initiatives focused on international topics.
Many of the study’s participants identified several successes achieved over the
past 15 years. Some of their criticism, however, should raise concerns about the
potential lack of consensus within the university as to what an internationalized
234
university would look like. To this point, those with greatest concern for the general
curriculum, especially for undergraduates, are less optimistic about the university’s
progress than those with greater interest in global networking and establishment of
new educational programs overseas.
Many external factors, which were not the primary focus of this study, may act
as constraints to internationalization and must also be considered. Chief among
these factors are the many ranking systems that are used to determine quality in
specific disciplines and fields. One such system, the US News and World Report
rankings, was highlighted in the responses of interview participants in Chapter 5.
Another example is the National Research Council, which emphasizes placement of
doctoral graduates into U.S. academic positions in its rankings. These examples
illustrate the difficulty facing a large research university attempting to create a
climate of internationalization among its many disparate schools and programs.
The 2004 USC Strategic Plan lays out a framework for future
internationalization through the focus on solving significant local, national and
especially global problems. The institution’s attention has been directed primarily to
the Asian Pacific Rim thus far, but new language put forward in the 2004 plan
increases the scope of USC’s efforts to take on a truly global identity as the
university of choice for leaders worldwide. Perhaps the most useful indicator of the
potential for success will be the university’s success, or lack thereof, in expanding its
internationalization initiative into Latin America in the coming years. This attempt
235
to grow beyond the comfort zone of Asia represents one of the more encouraging
developments.
A common concern noted in previous chapters focused on the tensions between
the desire for internationalization of academic and programmatic elements of the
university and the need to pay attention to financial implications of these initiatives.
In some cases, such as the struggle over how much to encourage study abroad and
the selection of sites for offshore educational programs, financial revenue issues
appear to take precedence in the decision-making process. Until revenue concerns
are alleviated to some extent, the university will face a difficult challenge in reaching
the sought-for broad international climate within the entire institution.
Recommendations
1. In order to increase the critical mass of members of the university community
with international expertise and interests, key institutional hires should bring new
internationally focused faculty, administrators and staff to campus. Minor strides
have been made to attract some Pacific Rim specialists to the faculty, however the
university is not satisfied with the results of this effort. While many of the
university’s academic deans are at the forefront in encouraging more international
activities within their schools, this trend is not occurring in all units. Future
appointments of deans with strong international expertise and contacts will intensify
the focus on this strategic initiative.
236
2. A centrally coordinated structure for sharing information about USC’s
international endeavors is needed. With schools and departments actively engaged
in starting new international programs and making new contacts around the world,
too much effort is duplicated and too little information is shared between those in
different units. It remains to be seen what role the new office of the executive
director for global initiatives might play in addressing this issue, but this would seem
to be a worthy agenda item for that position. In addition to information-sharing,
structures and incentives for cross-disciplinary partnerships should be enacted to
formalize support for collaborative projects internationally.
3. Special attention should be given to the effects of USC’s internationalization
strategy on demonstrable results for students; undergraduate and graduate, domestic
and international. Beyond USC’s success in attracting large numbers of international
students, an assessment should be made of how the specific manifestations of USC’s
expanded global presence benefits all students at the university. Internationalization
of the curriculum should be a part of this process. This effort should span all
academic fields and disciplines. One challenge to this objective is that the
university’s international initiatives are focused to a large degree on the business
school, due to the obvious international nature of the current business curriculum,
and a small number of other academic units.
237
4. At some point in the future, to become recognized as a truly global university,
USC will need to begin to look beyond the Pacific Rim in a more formal and
substantial way. Although it is recognized that many of the most lucrative potential
markets for educational programs are emerging in Asia, those universities that have
attained the highest level of recognition for their global programs have typically
managed to develop strengths and networks in several world regions. Building from
existing strengths and solidifying strength in one area first is a good start, but the
institution runs the risk of being perceived as limited in focus unless it builds
additional expertise in other areas eventually.
5. An institutional plan for enhancement of study abroad programs should be
enacted to encourage more students to build at least one significant international
experience into their program of studies. Constraining issues such as lost tuition
revenue should be addressed to remove obstacles to sending more students overseas
for a portion of their study. Alternative overseas opportunities such as internships
and volunteer service should be promoted and support structures put in place to
facilitate students’ involvement in these international programs.
238
References
Altbach, P. (2002a). Knowledge and Education as International Commodities: The
Collapse of the Common Good. International Higher Education, Summer
2002. Available:
www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News28/text001.htm
Altbach, P. (2002b). Perspectives on International Higher Education. Change,
34(3), pp. 29-31.
Altbach, P. (2001). Higher Education and the WTO: Globalization Run Amok.
International Higher Education, Spring 2001.
Altbach, P. (1998). Comparative Higher Education: Knowlege, the University, and
Development. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Altbach, P. & Peterson, P.M. (1998). Internationalize American Higher Education?
Not Exactly. Change, 30(4), pp. 36-39.
Armstrong, L. (2000). Distance Learning: An Academic Leader’s Perspective on a
Disruptive Product. Change, 32(6), pp. 20-27.
Barker, C. (2000). Education for International Understanding and Global
Competence. Report of a meeting convened by Carnegie Corporation of
New York, January 21, 2000. New York, NY: Carnegie Corp.
Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of Universities: A University Culture-based
Framework. Higher Education, 45, pp. 43-70.
Biddle, S. (2002). Internationalization: Rhetoric or Reality? [ALCS Occasional
Paper, No. 56]. New York, NY: American Council of Learned Societies.
Burn, B. (1980). Expanding the International Dimension of Higher Education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burn, B. & Smuckler, R. (1995). A Research Agenda for the Internationalization of
Higher Education in the United States: Recommendations and Report.
Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators.
Carnoy, M. & Rhoten, D. (2002). What Does Globalization Mean for Educational
Change: A Comparative Approach. Comparative Education Review, 46(1),
pp. 1-9.
239
Currie, J., DeAngelis, R., de Boer, H., Huisman, J., & Lacotte, C. (2003).
Globalizing Practices and University Responses. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Currie, J. & Subotsky, G. (2000). Alternative Responses to Globalization from
European and South African Universities. In Stromquist, N. & Monkman, K.
(Eds.), Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation Across
Cultures (pp. 123-147). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Daniel, J. (2003). Scientific ‘Communism’ and the Capitalist Economy:
Universities in the Era of Globalization. In Breton, G. & Lambert, M.
(Eds.), Universities and Globalization: Private Linkages, Public Trust. (pp.
37-43). Paris: UNESCO.
Daniel, J. (2002). Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of
Qualifications in Higher Education in an International Perspective. In
UNESCO, Globalization and the Market in Higher Education: Quality,
Accreditation and Qualifications. (pp. 11-19). Paris: author.
Daniel, J. (1996). Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology
Strategies for Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.
Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and
Entrepreneurialism in Universities: Is the Local Dimension Still Important?
Comparative Education, 37(1), pp. 7-20.
de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of
America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
de Wit, H. (1999). Changing Rationales for the Internationalization of Higher
Education. International Higher Education [online], Spring 1999. Available:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News15/text1.html.
Denzin, N. (1978). The Research Act. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Douglass, J. (2003). Scanning the Market Horizon: Educational Futures in
Historical Perspective. Minerva, 41, pp. 381-395.
Enders, J, & Fulton, O. (Eds.) (2002). Higher Education in a Globalising World:
International Trends and Mutual Observations. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Engberg, D. (2001). Attitudes about International Education in the United States.
International Higher Education, 22, Winter 2001. [online].
240
Fielden, J. (2001). Markets for ‘Borderless Education’. Minerva, 39, pp. 49-62.
Fox, C. (2002). The Massification of Higher Education. In Hayes, D. & Wynyard,
R. (Eds.), The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport, CT:
Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. (2002). Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher
Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(4), pp. 425-463.
Green, M. (2002). Joining the World: The Challenge of Internationalizing
Undergraduate Education. Change, 34(3), pp. 12-21.
Hayward, F. (2000). Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education: Preliminary
Status Report 2000. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Held, D. & McGrew, A. (2002). Globalization/Anti-Globalization. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
Hickling-Hudson, A. (2000). Globalization and Universities in the Commonwealth
Caribbean. In Stromquist, N. & Monkman, K. (Eds.), Globalization and
Education: Integration and Contestation Across Cultures (pp. 219-236).
Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
International Association of Universities (May-July 2002). IAU Newsletter, Vol 8,
No. 2-3.
International Association of Universities (1998). Toward a Century of Cooperation:
Internationalisation of Higher Education. Prepared for UNESCO World
Conference in Higher Education. Available:
http://www.unesco.org/iau/tfi_statement.html.
Kerr, C. (1991). International Learning and National Purposes in Higher Education.
American Behavioral Scientist, 35(1), pp. 17-42.
Knight, J. (2004). New Rationales Driving Internationalization. International
Higher Education, 34, Winter 2004 [online]. Available:
www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News34/text002.htm.
Knight, J. (2002). The Impact of GATS and Trade Liberalization on Higher
Education. In UNESCO, Globalization and the Market in Higher Education:
Quality, Accreditation and Qualificiations. (pp. 191-209). Paris: author.
241
LeCompte, M. & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in
Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), pp. 31-60.
Lee, M.N.N. (2000). The Impacts of Globalization on Education in Malaysia. In
Stromquist, N. & Monkman, K. (Eds.), Globalization and Education:
Integration and Contestation Across Cultures (pp. 315-332). Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Lofland, J. & Lofland, L (1995). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative
Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Marginson, S. (2002). The Phenomenal Rise of International Degrees Down Under:
Lucrative Lessons for U.S. Institutions? Change, 34(3), pp. 34-43.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitiative Researching. London, UK: Sage.
Meredith, M. (2004). Why do Universities Compete in the Ratings Game? An
Empirical Analysis of the Effects of the U.S. News and World Report
College Rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), pp. 443-461.
Mestenhauser, J. (1998). Portraits of an International Curriculum: An Uncommon
Multidimensional Perspective. In Mestenhauser, J. & Ellingboe, B. (Eds.),
Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus.
Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
Meyer, K. (2004). The Impact of Competition on Program Quality. Planning for
Higher Education, 32(4), pp. 5-13.
Middlehurst, R. (2001). University Challenges: Borderless Higher Education,
Today and Tomorrow. Minerva, 39, pp. 3-26.
Mohamedbhai, G. (2003). Globalization and its Implications for Universities in
Developing Countries. In Breton, G. & Lambert, M. (Eds.), Universities
and Globalization: Private Linkages, Public Trust. (pp. 153-162). Paris:
UNESCO.
Monkman, K. & Baird, M. (2002). Educational Change in the Context of
Globalization. Comparative Education Review, 46(4), pp. 497-508.
Newman, F. & Couturier, L. (2001). The New Competitive Arena: Market Forces
Invade the Academy. Change, 33(5), pp. 11-17.
242
OECD (2004). Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities
and Challenges. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
O’Meara, K. (2001). The Impact of Consumerism, Capitalism, and For-profit
Competition on American Higher Education. International Higher
Education, 22, Winter 2001 [online].
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ping, C. (1999). An Expanded International Role for Student Affairs. New
Directions for Student Services(86), pp. 13-21.
Robertson, S., Bonal, X., & Dale, R. (2002). GATS and th e Education Service
Industry: The Politics of Scale and Global Reterritorialization. Comparative
Education Review, 46(4), pp. 472-496.
Ruther, N. (2002). Barely There, Powerfully Present: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy
on International Higher Education. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ryan, Y. (2001). Higher Education as a Business: Lessons from the Corporate
world. Minerva, 39, pp. 115-135.
Schugurensky, D. (1999). Higher Education Restructuring in the Era of
Globalization: Toward a Heteronomous Model? In R. Arnove & C.A.
Torres (Eds.), Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the
Local (pp. 283-304). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and Higher Education: Challenges for the 21
st
Century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1), pp. 3-10.
Seidel, H. (1991). Internationalisation: A New Challenge for Universities. Higher
Education, 21, pp. 289-296.
Siaya, L. & Hayward, F. (2003). Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses:
Final Report 2003. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Slaughter, S. (2001). Professional Values and the Allure of the Market. Academe,
87(5), pp. 22-26.
243
Spaulding, S., Mauch, J. & Lin, L. (2001). The Internationalization of Higher
Education: Policy and Program Issues. In O’Meara, P., Mehlinger, H. &
Newman, R. (Eds.), Changing Perspective on International Education.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualititave Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stromquist, N. (2002a). Education in a Globalized World: The Connectivitiy of
Economic Power, Technology, and Knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Stromquist, N. (2002b). Globalization, the I, and the Other. Current Issues in
Comparative Education [Online], 4(2). Available at:
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/vol4nr2/nps142.htm [access date 09/25/02]
Stromquist, N. & Monkman, K. (Eds.), (2000) Glo balization and Education:
Integration and Contestation Across Cultures Lanham, Maryland: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Thullen, S., Tillman, M., Horner, D., Carty, S., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Cooperating
with a “University in the United States: NAFSA’s Guide to Interuniversity
Linkages. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International
Educators.
Turpin, T., Iredale, R. & Crinnion, P. (2002). The Internationalization of Higher
Education: Implications for Australia and its Education ‘Clients’. Minerva,
40, pp. 327-340.
Van Damme, D. (2001). Quality Issues in the Internationalization of Higher
Education. Higher Education, 41, pp. 415-441.
Van Ginkel, H. (2003). What Does Globalization Mean for Higher Education? In
Breton, G. & Lambert, M. (Eds.), Universities and Globalization: Private
Linkages, Public Trust. (pp. 71-80). Paris: UNESCO.
Wagner, P. (2004). Higher Education in an Era of Globalization: What is at Stake?
In Odin, J. & Manicas, P. (Eds.), Globalization and Higher Education.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i.
Welch, A. (2002). Going Global? Internationalizing Australian Universities in a
Time of Global Crisis. Comparative Education Review, 46(4), pp. 433-471.
244
Welch, A. (1997). The Peripatetic Professor: The Internationalisation of the
Academic Profession. Higher Education, 34, pp. 323-345.
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
245
Appendix A
Interview Protocol for Administrators
Background:
1. How long have you been at USC?
2. How long have you been in your current role?
Internationalization – Rationales and Goals:
3. How would you define the concept of internationalization in higher education?
4. Why, in your opinion, is USC pursuing internationalization as a key
institutional strategy?
5. What are your views toward the inclusion of internationalization as a key
institutional strategy?
6. What are the intended outcomes of this strategy?
7. If attainment of an internationalization strategy was completely successful, how
would the institution look different than it does today?
Process and Outcomes:
8. Over the course of your time at USC, has the focus on internationalization
changed? If so, how?
9. Who is leading the efforts to internationalize?
10. What have been the greatest successes in regard to internationalization at USC?
11. What are the obstacles and challenges to institutional internationalization?
12. How has the institution’s organizational structure changed, if at all, in response
to development of an internationalization strategy?
13. In what ways is the internationalization strategy supported financially? Have
resources been redirected or new resources gathered for these efforts?
Influences and Competition:
14. Are there examples or models of internationalization from outside USC that
have been helpful in guiding this strategy?
15. Who are USC’s main competitors in the area of internationalization?
Transnational Education:
16. What role do new transnational education activities (such as offshore programs,
joint degree arrangements, and distance education) play in contrast to more
long-standing international education activities such as foreign students and
study abroad?
246
Appendix B
Interview Protocol for Faculty
Background:
1. How long have you been at USC?
2. How long have you been in your current role?
Internationalization – Rationales and Goals:
3. How would you define the concept of internationalization in higher education?
4. Why, in your opinion, is USC pursuing internationalization as a key
institutional strategy?
5. What are your views toward the inclusion of internationalization as a key
institutional strategy?
6. What are the intended outcomes of this strategy?
7. If attainment of an internationalization strategy was completely successful, how
would the institution look different than it does today?
Process and Outcomes:
8. Has your work changed in any way in regard to international endeavors? If so,
how?
9. Over the course of your time at USC, has the focus on internationalization
changed? If so, how?
10. What have been the greatest successes in regard to internationalization at USC?
11. Within your school or department, are there financial or other incentives to
internationalize your teaching/research? How has this changed over time? Are
the incentives effective?
Influences and Competition:
12. Is internationalization a frequent topic of conversation with your colleagues?
What issues are discussed?
13. Are there examples or models of internationalization from outside USC that
have been helpful in guiding this strategy?
14. Who are USC’s main competitors in the area of internationalization?
15. How does your school or department compete or cooperate with others in
pursuit of an internationalization agenda?
247
Appendix C
Interview Protocol for Program Staff
Background:
1. How long have you been at USC?
2. How long have you been in your current role?
Internationalization – Rationales and Goals:
3. How would you define the concept of internationalization in higher education?
4. Why, in your opinion, is USC pursuing internationalization as a key
institutional strategy?
5. What are your views toward the inclusion of internationalization as a key
institutional strategy?
6. If attainment of an internationalization strategy was completely successful, how
would the institution look different than it does today?
7. How does your program area fit into the overall international mission of the
university?
Process and Outcomes:
8. How does your office/program fit into the overall internationalization strategy?
9. Has support for your office/program changed over the past 20 years? How have
these changes related to institutional efforts to internationalize?
10. What are the intended outcomes of your program?
11. For your program, how is success measured?
12. What have been the greatest successes for your program area?
13. What are the obstacles and challenges faced by your program?
Influences and Competition:
14. Does your program work with international partners to carry out the program
objectives? Who are they and how are responsibilities divided between USC
and partners?
15. Are there examples of programs from outside USC that have been helpful in
guiding your program? If so, why were they chosen as models?
16. For your program area, who are the main competitors to USC?
Technology:
17. In what ways does your program use new educational technologies to enchance
the educational process?
248
Appendix D
Interview Request Letter
PHONE SCRIPT/EMAIL TEXT FOR INTERVIEW SUBJECT SOLICITATION
Dear [name]:
My name is John (Tony) Tambascia and I am a graduate student at USC, pursuing a
Ph.D. in the Rossier School of Education. I would like to request an interview with
you for research I am conducting as part of my doctoral dissertation. I am
conducting a study of internationalization as a strategic initiative in higher education,
using the University of Southern California as the site for a qualitative case study.
You have been selected for inclusion in this project due the nature of your
employment responsibilities at USC and your involvement in the planning and
implementation of international education activities.
All interviews for this project will take place between January and June 2005. I
anticipate the interview to last approximately 60 minutes. Your participation in the
interviews is voluntary and confidential.
The interview will include approximately 15 questions. Some sample questions
include:
Why, in your opinion, is USC pursuing internationalization as a key
institutional strategy?
What are the intended outcomes of this strategy?
How has the institution’s organizational structure changed, if at all, in
response to development of an internationalization strategy?
Who are USC’s main competitors in the area of internationalization?
If attainment of an internationalization strategy was completely successful,
how would the institution look different than it does today?
Over the course of your time at USC, has the focus on internationalization
changed? If so, how?
Has your work changed in any way in regard to international endeavors? If
so, how?
If you agree to participate, please reply to this message or phone (213-740-6756) so
we can then schedule a time and location on the University of Southern California
campus that is most convenient for you. If it works for you, I am happy to meet in
your office.
249
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the principal investigator,
Nelly P. Stromquist, Ph.D., at the contact numbers listed below.
Thank you.
John Tambascia
Co-Principal Investigator
tambasci@usc.edu
213-740-6756
Nelly P. Stromquist
Principal Investigator
stromqui@usc.edu
213-740-3460
USC UPIRB #05-01-011

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A quantitative/qualitative analysis of student achievement among Latino immigrant students with a general educational development diploma and United States-born Hispanic students with a high scho...

PDF

Educational development aid and the role of language: A case study of AIT -Danida and the Royal University of Agriculture in Cambodia

PDF

Educating women on sexual health and reproductive rights: A case study of a prevention program in Peru

PDF

Empowering urban street children: Freirean and feminist perspectives on nonformal education in Mexico

PDF

Chinese immigrants united for self -empowerment: Case study of a weekend Chinese school

PDF

Education for change in a changing Nigerian Igbo society: Impacts of traditional African and western education on the upbringing of Igbo children

PDF

Catholic schools and civic engagement: A case study of community service -learning and its impact on critical consciousness and social capital

PDF

Border crossing: the experience of international students from Latin America in a California community college

PDF

Community learning in environmental NGO projects in Vietnam: A comparative study

PDF

Environmental education in community -based coastal resource management: A case study of Olango Island, Philippines

PDF

Educational opportunism as the traditional policy of the South Caucasian international schools

PDF

Gender, learning, and trafficking: Helping vulnerable Thai women through NGO and government non -formal education programs

PDF

A longitudinal study into the learning style preferences of university ESL students

PDF

Dealing with the United States' educational crisis: Studying baccalaureate programs

PDF

Effects of email on learners' compositional ability: A quantitative and qualitative study

PDF

Higher education's responses to economic development: Vietnam

PDF

Cultural tourism and educational development: Creating new realities in the inner city

PDF

Does program quality matter? A meta-analysis of select bilingual education studies

PDF

Academic achievement of English -learning Latino students in relation to higher order thinking skills instruction

PDF

An assessment of general education requirements in Taiwanese higher education

Asset Metadata

Creator Tambascia, John Anthony (author)

Core Title Internationalization of higher education: A case study of a private United States research university

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, bilingual and multicultural,education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Stromquist, Nelly (committee chair), Lamy, Steven L. (committee member), Rideout, William M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-473502

Unique identifier UC11342032

Identifier 3219855.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-473502 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3219855.pdf

Dmrecord 473502

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tambascia, John Anthony

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA